LogFAQs > #975789909

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, Database 12 ( 11.2023-? ), Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Kyle Rittenhouse part 2
InfinityMonster 09/01/23 4:51:58 AM #40:	andel posted... shittenhouse is getting sued and may be fucked in the civil case. "A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975)." andel posted... the judge in the criminal case didn't let in the information that he sucker punches girls A fight over his sister starting a fight with another chick has nothing to do with this situation. No judge would have allowed that. Neither did he say he wanted to shoot protestors. And why would something happening after he was charged be relevant? People in lock up get friendly with the gangs there like the Bloods. Should prosecutors be able to use that against a case? Dark_Arbron posted... We dont have to think in the overly complicated way the legal system does (lots of does this technically qualify). He went to a protest, full of people he disagreed with and hated, carrying a firearm. How dense, or dishonest, do you have to be not to understand what he was doing there? There wasn't technicalities. If you paid attention to and watched the trial, the prosecution had nothing. --- "It lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge" <cite>InfinityMonster posted [p:975789909] in Kyle Ritte... [t:80552464]...</cite> <quote>andel posted... </cite><quote>shittenhouse is getting sued and may be fucked in the civil case.</quote>"A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975)."andel posted... </cite><quote>the judge in the criminal case didn't let in the information that he sucker punches girls</quote>A fight over his sister starting a fight with another chick has nothing to do with this situation. No judge would have allowed that. Neither did he say he wanted to shoot protestors. And why would something happening after he was charged be relevant? People in lock up get friendly with the gangs there like the Bloods. Should prosecutors be able to use that against a case?Dark_Arbron posted... </cite><quote>We dont have to think in the overly complicated way the legal system does (lots of does this technically qualify).He went to a protest, full of people he disagreed with and hated, carrying a firearm. How dense, or dishonest, do you have to be not to understand what he was doing there?</quote>There wasn't technicalities. If you paid attention to and watched the trial, the prosecution had nothing. --- "It lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1