hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
also looks like "defense of others' property" is not a valid defense in this case
I clearly explained myself badly here. Let's try again:
If you pass a law banning the shit Nazis say, it will be weaponized to oppress minorities even further. Guaranteed, 100%, probably within weeks of the law going into effect. The system is rigged, it is run by people who think a formal proof is the same as real life, and attempts to use it for our own goals will just result in horrific backfires.
Just go punch Nazis. It will be both faster and less likely to fuck you down the line.
Germany outlawed Nazism and Nazi speech and they seem to be doing okay.
There was a fucking huge nazi rally around the holocaust museum in Berlin yesterday. Nazis find a way, they just use proxy symbols (in Germany its usually the confederate flag). I'm not saying this to advocate against legislating hate speech, it's just that it won't get rid of the problem and eternal vigilance etc
I clearly explained myself badly here. Let's try again:
If you pass a law banning the shit Nazis say, it will be weaponized to oppress minorities even further. Guaranteed, 100%, probably within weeks of the law going into effect. The system is rigged, it is run by people who think a formal proof is the same as real life, and attempts to use it for our own goals will just result in horrific backfires.
Just go punch Nazis. It will be both faster and less likely to fuck you down the line.
Germany outlawed Nazism and Nazi speech and they seem to be doing okay.
There was a fucking huge nazi rally around the holocaust museum in Berlin yesterday. Nazis find a way, they just use proxy symbols (in Germany its usually the confederate flag). I'm not saying this to advocate against legislating hate speech, it's just that it won't get rid of the problem and eternal vigilance etc
I think it highlights the futility of state power in suppressing nazis. You either give them too much power or they're ineffective. Its our responsibility to deal with them ourselves as citizens.
Heritage Not Hate i slaver over the internet, studiously ignoring the fact that other fascists in other countries use my Heritage Symbol to express their hate, just as i fuckin' do
hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
oh cool thanks for pulling that up. to my untrained eye it definitely looks like the internet scuttlebutt might be at least technically right
e: damn i shoulda read your edit. that makes it more complicated!
They are probably more aware of the consequences of being a Nazi compared to American Nazis. Following the end of WW2 the Soviets went on a hunt for Nazis and their sympathizers, which resulted in a bunch of shit like Nazis moving to South America. Any of them that stayed in Germany and kept quiet probably told the story to their families, and we're only a couple generations out from that.
All this to say, I hope they're still scared to this day that people aren't going to take their shit.
I will say that the few attempts at a Nazi rally I saw when I lived in Germany the actual Nazis were generally outnumbered 20:1 by counter protestors.
According to rumour, the real goal was to fuck with the police, so they'd always schedule them on state holidays so the police would have to burn overtime protecting Nazis from getting their shit kicked in.
Edit @Henroid I fear that's not really the case at least over the last twenty years. The language changes but the ideology persists and is still not far below the surface. You can't sell mein Kampf or display a swastika. You can still call immigrants subhuman scum and advocate for refugees drowning in the Mediterranean and shout about globalists to your audience of five thousand skin heads at a Jewish memorial. I am not in a position to rank the soul fear of Nazis in different countries but I have an anecdotal list of hate crimes committed against black acquaintance in Germany which suggests that they do no feel THAT nervous about retribution.
so I hate Nazis as much as the next person, but for the forum's sake we might wanna stop talking about the explicit and specific ways in which to do violence against them
so I hate Nazis as much as the next person, but for the forum's sake we might wanna stop talking about the explicit and specific ways in which to do violence against them
I hate so much that in the year of our Lord 2020 this is a real thing that we need to be reminded of.
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2020
edit: i'm going to spoiler this for internet lawyering, but there's a link to the Wisconsin statute which also includes some cases, if anyone is interested
hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
oh cool thanks for pulling that up. to my untrained eye it definitely looks like the internet scuttlebutt might be at least technically right
e: damn i shoulda read your edit. that makes it more complicated!
yeah sorry, i wanted to keep it all in the same post
i think section (2) could provide some wrinkles, as i don't know exactly what transpired:
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (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.
did he provoke something as a pretext?
is brandishing an unlawful firearm unlawful conduct that would provoke people to, say, disarm you?
was he able to escape from the scene where the first shooting occurred?
Ubik on
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
also looks like "defense of others' property" is not a valid defense in this case
I have never heard of a stand your ground law that would allow lethal force to defend someone else’s property.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
My absolutism is that Nazis shouldn't be able to say anything, even non-Nazi shit
They should lose the right to all forms of speech not just hate speech
Also this whole thing started because it was floated that the ACLU were not being fucking absurd by fighting to protect Nazi speech, and that will always over thousand percent be totally shithouse wrong no matter what bad analogies you apply to it the end. (You are wrong.)
it's a bad name, but cornel west is getting in on it, and his presence in a group is a big plus in my book
The convention revives an evergreen debate on the left: whether to follow the likes of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and reform the Democratic party from within, or to conclude that it is irredeemably beholden to corporate interests and walk away to create something new.
i think something a ton of people have learned in the past ten or so years is that totally normal people can be really really awful.
it can take very little, and nothing exceptional, to send people down some real bad ways. And once set on a path it is usually human nature to start propelling themselves down that path.
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
also looks like "defense of others' property" is not a valid defense in this case
I have never heard of a stand your ground law that would allow lethal force to defend someone else’s property.
true, but it's amazing how many of these militia types are out there brandishing guns with the only stated justification of protecting random businesses/properties, like that's just a given legal objective
hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
also looks like "defense of others' property" is not a valid defense in this case
I have never heard of a stand your ground law that would allow lethal force to defend someone else’s property.
I can't recall the state but a few years back a case where some asshole got acquitted after calling 911 to say his neighbors place was being robbed, affirmed that he believed the place empty, stated his intent to shoot the burglars if they were going to leave before someone got there, was told by the 911 dispatcher not to do this, saw them exit, walked outside and yelled "You're dead!" within range of the phone receiver and began opening fire.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2020
I think we have a chance to reform it from within. This may be morbid, but our chances go up as the older members of the party pass away; they're going to leave gaps across America that need to be filled as far as government goes.
Edit - And I specifically note that because holy shit the older people in the party have zero interest in giving up their positions of power so we just have to... wait.
hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
also looks like "defense of others' property" is not a valid defense in this case
I have never heard of a stand your ground law that would allow lethal force to defend someone else’s property.
You can't even use lethal force to protect your fucking dog in this country, unless that's been passed recently.
I think we have a chance to reform it from within. This may be morbid, but our chances go up as the older members of the party pass away; they're going to leave gaps across America that need to be filled as far as government goes.
Edit - And I specifically note that because holy shit the older people in the party have zero interest in giving up their positions of power so we just have to... wait.
i guess that'll come down to whether the majority of younger politicians waiting in the wings are more like AOC or pete buttigieg, if there's a lot of mayor petes waiting for their chance then there ain't gonna be a lot of reform happening
there's also shit like lobbyists running the orientation for new legislators. there's gonna have to be a lot of will to get rid of shit like that to have any hope of rolling back on the way industry has captured the legislature, which honestly i don't think is gonna happen
hell, i don't think a brand new actually leftist party will be enough at this point. if that shit had happened in response to obama's first term it still probably would've been too late, but the democrats and republicans will form a monolithic single party before either of them lets socialists or even social democrats gain enough power to be a meaningful threat
it's a bad name, but cornel west is getting in on it, and his presence in a group is a big plus in my book
The convention revives an evergreen debate on the left: whether to follow the likes of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and reform the Democratic party from within, or to conclude that it is irredeemably beholden to corporate interests and walk away to create something new.
Others speaking at the People’s Convention, however, are reluctant to give up on the Democrats altogether. ... “I support both of those forces because I think at the end of the day, even though they might be going down slightly different roads, they are parallel and the end point is the same."
hmm, from what i remember from grade school, i don't think that's how parallel lines work
I think we have a chance to reform it from within. This may be morbid, but our chances go up as the older members of the party pass away; they're going to leave gaps across America that need to be filled as far as government goes.
And I think we're seeing that, to a certain extent. Progress is always much much slower than we'd like, but we're seeing things that would have been unthinkable a few years back gaining serious traction and acceptance on the D side of the aisle.
The problem is always gonna be old people and their financial interests, but a you noted - they die. And e.g. Millennials seems to have been trending left-y or independent, which I think is a good sign.
hey legal folks, i heard something that i am really curious to find out if it's true or not
there's word going around that the brownshirt kid that murdered those people in wisconsin might be fucked as far as the law goes. apparently the stand-your-ground law that would've had a decent chance of letting him skate doesn't apply if the person claiming it was committing a crime at the time, and since he was seventeen years old carrying a rifle in a state where you have to be eighteen before you can open carry, it looks like that's the case
is there anything to this? i know if it goes to trial all it'll take is one fascist juror who thinks it's cool to murder protesters to let him walk or maybe just get off on a weapon charge, but it'd be cool if the law acknowledged that it's fuckin' insane to allow you to intentionally put yourself in a position where you have pretext to kill someone and then claim self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
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, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
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.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
also looks like "defense of others' property" is not a valid defense in this case
I have never heard of a stand your ground law that would allow lethal force to defend someone else’s property.
Greg Doucette has some tweets about this and what Manny was asking. Some excerpts from jumping throughout the thread here:
it's a bad name, but cornel west is getting in on it, and his presence in a group is a big plus in my book
The convention revives an evergreen debate on the left: whether to follow the likes of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and reform the Democratic party from within, or to conclude that it is irredeemably beholden to corporate interests and walk away to create something new.
Others speaking at the People’s Convention, however, are reluctant to give up on the Democrats altogether. ... “I support both of those forces because I think at the end of the day, even though they might be going down slightly different roads, they are parallel and the end point is the same."
hmm, from what i remember from grade school, i don't think that's how parallel lines work
there's a certain poetry to the fact that the only way they can meet is in an illusion using a forced perspective
+13
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
I don't think any of this thread is news for folks in here but the comparison to Hungary isn't one I'd thought of, and might be a helpful touchstone since folks tend to bring up 1940's Germany instead and that isn't quite as applicable.
+20
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
it's extremely important that they be able to demonstrate intent
if the defense goes for self-defense(which it absolutely will if there is no plea) then the state will have the opportunity to pick apart his character and bring into evidence any form of radicalizing literature he read or also wrote
I think we have a chance to reform it from within. This may be morbid, but our chances go up as the older members of the party pass away; they're going to leave gaps across America that need to be filled as far as government goes.
And I think we're seeing that, to a certain extent. Progress is always much much slower than we'd like, but we're seeing things that would have been unthinkable a few years back gaining serious traction and acceptance on the D side of the aisle.
The problem is always gonna be old people and their financial interests, but a you noted - they die. And e.g. Millennials seems to have been trending left-y or independent, which I think is a good sign.
if the world wasn't currently figuratively and literally on fire, it might be the best course of action to keep going slow and steady and hope the next gaggle of politicians is less morally bankrupt than the current, even though i would argue there's not a whole lot of reason to put much hope in that idea
we just do not have time for that shit anymore. the president is openly talking about just not worrying about doing an election this year, half the west coast is burning down because the slaves they use to fight the wildfires are all sick with a plague the government is refusing to do anything about, not to mention the police giving their blessing to brownshirts murdering people protesting open unapologetic oppression of black folks or the impending ecological collapse
i don't think it's realistic to hope that a new political party will be much of an impediment to any of the half dozen existential threats we've got brewing right now, but at least it isn't just continuing to do the same shit that got us here in the first place and hoping for the best
Gunfucker twitter is in predicable disarray over the Kenhosha shooting, they were all gladly braying self-defense initially but the more squeamish ones are reeling over the 'out of town child-cop soldier' aspects
Gunfucker twitter is in predicable disarray over the Kenhosha shooting, they were all gladly braying self-defense initially but the more squeamish ones are reeling over the 'out of town child-cop soldier' aspects
There's already a reasoning for it. Gateway Pundit (that I won't link) has his lawyer's statement:
Kyle Rittenhouse is a community lifeguard who was working in Kenosha the day of the shooting.
This simple fact destroys the narrative being peddled by the mainstream media that he had “crossed state lines” to harm the rioters.
In a statement by Rittenhouse’s legal team at Pierce Bainbridge, provided to the Gateway Pundit, they explained that “after Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters.”
Additionally, the weapon Rittenhouse was using to protect himself and others never crossed state lines.
“Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence,” the statement continues. “Business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life’s work, including two nearby mechanic’s shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises. The weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.”
When Rittenhouse arrived at the mechanics shop, he and others stood guard to prevent further destruction. Later that night, long after the 8 p.m. curfew had passed, the police began to disperse a group of rioters. His lawyer, John M. Pierce, explains that while dispersing the mob, they maneuvered a mass of individuals down the street towards the auto shops. Rittenhouse and the others were threatened and taunted, but he did not react. “His intent was not to incite violence, but simply to deter property damage and use his training to provide first aid to injured community members,” Pierce says.
After the situation seemed to be diffused, Rittenhouse became increasingly concerned about people who were injured at the gas station, so he went in that direction with his first aid kit. He helped those he could find who were injured, either by administering aid or directing them which way to go for help beyond what he could offer.
The statement says that by the final time that Rittenhouse returned to the gas station and “confirmed there were no more injured individuals who needed assistance, police had advanced their formation and blocked what would have been his path back to the mechanic’s shop. Kyle then complied with the police instructions not to go back there. Kyle returned to the gas station until he learned of a need to help protect the second mechanic’s shop further down the street where property destruction was imminent with no police were nearby.”
“As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. This outraged the rioters and created a mob now determined to hurt Kyle. They began chasing him down. Kyle attempted to get away, but he could not do so quickly enough. Upon the sound of a gunshot behind him, Kyle turned and was immediately faced with an attacker lunging towards him and reaching for his rifle. He reacted instantaneously and justifiably with his weapon to protect himself, firing and striking the attacker,” Pierce explains.
Gunfucker twitter is in predicable disarray over the Kenhosha shooting, they were all gladly braying self-defense initially but the more squeamish ones are reeling over the 'out of town child-cop soldier' aspects
Because they are bad faith actors who don't actually have any constant argument or stance and will just change their tune the second it isn't working this doesn't really matter, but the current line of BS is that he didn't illegally transport a gun over state lines because someone lent him the rifle once he was in-state.
Notice, of course, this doesn't address the fact that him having the rifle in public was against the law, full stop.
The fuckers are also calling all the victims pedophiles too, which is just fist-clenchingy low.
Gunfucker twitter is in predicable disarray over the Kenhosha shooting, they were all gladly braying self-defense initially but the more squeamish ones are reeling over the 'out of town child-cop soldier' aspects
gunfuckers' only rhetorical goal is to defend their need to have guns, everything else is secondary to that. they don't really care much about making basic sense, they definitely don't care to get into the inherent fuckedness of a child bringing a rifle to a protest so he could do cargo cult police shit, because a lot of them don't think he did anything wrong and a scary number of them are likely embarrassed that they don't have the guts to go and do the thing like a seventeen year old did
if the world wasn't currently figuratively and literally on fire, it might be the best course of action to keep going slow and steady and hope the next gaggle of politicians is less morally bankrupt than the current, even though i would argue there's not a whole lot of reason to put much hope in that idea
we just do not have time for that shit anymore. the president is openly talking about just not worrying about doing an election this year, half the west coast is burning down because the slaves they use to fight the wildfires are all sick with a plague the government is refusing to do anything about ...
I agree in principle, but I'm terrified of splitting the left-leaning vote as the right will definitely use divide-and-conquer tactics to their advantage when they lack numerical advantage.
if I hear one more Liberal tell me that Trumps the real problem I'm going to roll my eyes so hard my optic nerves are going to snap like cheap rubber bands.
And as far as the ACLU is concerned, remember only 2 years ago they phrased their opposition to Devos' changes to Title IX as:
Today Secretary DeVos proposed a rule that would tip the scales against those who raise their voices. We strongly oppose it,” the organization stated on Twitter. “The proposed rule would make schools less safe for survivors of sexual assault and harassment, when there is already alarmingly high rates of campus sexual assaults and harassment that go unreported. It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused and letting schools ignore their responsibility under Title IX to respond promptly and fairly to complaints of sexual violence. We will continue to support survivors.”
That says a lot about the organizations priorities.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
if the world wasn't currently figuratively and literally on fire, it might be the best course of action to keep going slow and steady and hope the next gaggle of politicians is less morally bankrupt than the current, even though i would argue there's not a whole lot of reason to put much hope in that idea
we just do not have time for that shit anymore. the president is openly talking about just not worrying about doing an election this year, half the west coast is burning down because the slaves they use to fight the wildfires are all sick with a plague the government is refusing to do anything about ...
I agree in principle, but I'm terrified of splitting the left-leaning vote as the right will definitely use divide-and-conquer tactics to their advantage when they lack numerical advantage.
If that fucking kid gets off with a self-defense claim for committing a double murder the way he did, it sure is going to set a precedent for a lot more legal murdering.
Posts
Yeah but travel restrictions because of all the incompetent nazis here
here's what a found with a quick google:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/49
edit: so it looks like the "criminal activity" thing in subsection (b) only negates the presumption of subparagraph (ar). subparagraph (ar) appears to be a castle doctrine, meaning the court doesn't have to look at whether the person was able to flee from certain places under certain circumstances, and the court presumes that deadly force was reasonable
so my reading of the statute is that if you're engaged in criminal activity in your home, etc. then you don't get the benefit of the presumption, but you can still make a case for self-defense
also looks like "defense of others' property" is not a valid defense in this case
I think to be a nazi in the first place you must have something wrong with your brain.
There was a fucking huge nazi rally around the holocaust museum in Berlin yesterday. Nazis find a way, they just use proxy symbols (in Germany its usually the confederate flag). I'm not saying this to advocate against legislating hate speech, it's just that it won't get rid of the problem and eternal vigilance etc
It’s a comforting thought, but it’s simply not true. Otherwise very normal people can be Nazis!
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I think it highlights the futility of state power in suppressing nazis. You either give them too much power or they're ineffective. Its our responsibility to deal with them ourselves as citizens.
oh cool thanks for pulling that up. to my untrained eye it definitely looks like the internet scuttlebutt might be at least technically right
e: damn i shoulda read your edit. that makes it more complicated!
hitting hot metal with hammers
All this to say, I hope they're still scared to this day that people aren't going to take their shit.
According to rumour, the real goal was to fuck with the police, so they'd always schedule them on state holidays so the police would have to burn overtime protecting Nazis from getting their shit kicked in.
Edit @Henroid I fear that's not really the case at least over the last twenty years. The language changes but the ideology persists and is still not far below the surface. You can't sell mein Kampf or display a swastika. You can still call immigrants subhuman scum and advocate for refugees drowning in the Mediterranean and shout about globalists to your audience of five thousand skin heads at a Jewish memorial. I am not in a position to rank the soul fear of Nazis in different countries but I have an anecdotal list of hate crimes committed against black acquaintance in Germany which suggests that they do no feel THAT nervous about retribution.
I hate so much that in the year of our Lord 2020 this is a real thing that we need to be reminded of.
No hate on you Houk, of course
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
yeah sorry, i wanted to keep it all in the same post
i think section (2) could provide some wrinkles, as i don't know exactly what transpired:
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(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.
did he provoke something as a pretext?
is brandishing an unlawful firearm unlawful conduct that would provoke people to, say, disarm you?
was he able to escape from the scene where the first shooting occurred?
I have never heard of a stand your ground law that would allow lethal force to defend someone else’s property.
not great
They should lose the right to all forms of speech not just hate speech
Also this whole thing started because it was floated that the ACLU were not being fucking absurd by fighting to protect Nazi speech, and that will always over thousand percent be totally shithouse wrong no matter what bad analogies you apply to it the end. (You are wrong.)
it's a bad name, but cornel west is getting in on it, and his presence in a group is a big plus in my book
hitting hot metal with hammers
it can take very little, and nothing exceptional, to send people down some real bad ways. And once set on a path it is usually human nature to start propelling themselves down that path.
true, but it's amazing how many of these militia types are out there brandishing guns with the only stated justification of protecting random businesses/properties, like that's just a given legal objective
I can't recall the state but a few years back a case where some asshole got acquitted after calling 911 to say his neighbors place was being robbed, affirmed that he believed the place empty, stated his intent to shoot the burglars if they were going to leave before someone got there, was told by the 911 dispatcher not to do this, saw them exit, walked outside and yelled "You're dead!" within range of the phone receiver and began opening fire.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Edit - And I specifically note that because holy shit the older people in the party have zero interest in giving up their positions of power so we just have to... wait.
You can't even use lethal force to protect your fucking dog in this country, unless that's been passed recently.
Good luck with that law
i guess that'll come down to whether the majority of younger politicians waiting in the wings are more like AOC or pete buttigieg, if there's a lot of mayor petes waiting for their chance then there ain't gonna be a lot of reform happening
there's also shit like lobbyists running the orientation for new legislators. there's gonna have to be a lot of will to get rid of shit like that to have any hope of rolling back on the way industry has captured the legislature, which honestly i don't think is gonna happen
hell, i don't think a brand new actually leftist party will be enough at this point. if that shit had happened in response to obama's first term it still probably would've been too late, but the democrats and republicans will form a monolithic single party before either of them lets socialists or even social democrats gain enough power to be a meaningful threat
hitting hot metal with hammers
Wouldn't be a law, nothing stopping it from being acted upon though.
hmm, from what i remember from grade school, i don't think that's how parallel lines work
And I think we're seeing that, to a certain extent. Progress is always much much slower than we'd like, but we're seeing things that would have been unthinkable a few years back gaining serious traction and acceptance on the D side of the aisle.
The problem is always gonna be old people and their financial interests, but a you noted - they die. And e.g. Millennials seems to have been trending left-y or independent, which I think is a good sign.
Greg Doucette has some tweets about this and what Manny was asking. Some excerpts from jumping throughout the thread here:
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
there's a certain poetry to the fact that the only way they can meet is in an illusion using a forced perspective
I don't think any of this thread is news for folks in here but the comparison to Hungary isn't one I'd thought of, and might be a helpful touchstone since folks tend to bring up 1940's Germany instead and that isn't quite as applicable.
if the defense goes for self-defense(which it absolutely will if there is no plea) then the state will have the opportunity to pick apart his character and bring into evidence any form of radicalizing literature he read or also wrote
if the world wasn't currently figuratively and literally on fire, it might be the best course of action to keep going slow and steady and hope the next gaggle of politicians is less morally bankrupt than the current, even though i would argue there's not a whole lot of reason to put much hope in that idea
we just do not have time for that shit anymore. the president is openly talking about just not worrying about doing an election this year, half the west coast is burning down because the slaves they use to fight the wildfires are all sick with a plague the government is refusing to do anything about, not to mention the police giving their blessing to brownshirts murdering people protesting open unapologetic oppression of black folks or the impending ecological collapse
i don't think it's realistic to hope that a new political party will be much of an impediment to any of the half dozen existential threats we've got brewing right now, but at least it isn't just continuing to do the same shit that got us here in the first place and hoping for the best
hitting hot metal with hammers
There's already a reasoning for it. Gateway Pundit (that I won't link) has his lawyer's statement:
Because they are bad faith actors who don't actually have any constant argument or stance and will just change their tune the second it isn't working this doesn't really matter, but the current line of BS is that he didn't illegally transport a gun over state lines because someone lent him the rifle once he was in-state.
Notice, of course, this doesn't address the fact that him having the rifle in public was against the law, full stop.
The fuckers are also calling all the victims pedophiles too, which is just fist-clenchingy low.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
gunfuckers' only rhetorical goal is to defend their need to have guns, everything else is secondary to that. they don't really care much about making basic sense, they definitely don't care to get into the inherent fuckedness of a child bringing a rifle to a protest so he could do cargo cult police shit, because a lot of them don't think he did anything wrong and a scary number of them are likely embarrassed that they don't have the guts to go and do the thing like a seventeen year old did
hitting hot metal with hammers
I agree in principle, but I'm terrified of splitting the left-leaning vote as the right will definitely use divide-and-conquer tactics to their advantage when they lack numerical advantage.
if I hear one more Liberal tell me that Trumps the real problem I'm going to roll my eyes so hard my optic nerves are going to snap like cheap rubber bands.
And as far as the ACLU is concerned, remember only 2 years ago they phrased their opposition to Devos' changes to Title IX as:
That says a lot about the organizations priorities.
Yes, that is their general tactic since forever.