Originally posted by Surtur
What do you think should be done in the case of a pet? What if someone shoots and kills another person in order to protect their dog from harm?
This is actually a really good question. It really depends on if it can be proven that the pet mattered just as much to their owner as a human relationship and the premeditation of the pet's murder, and even then they could get charged as a murder of passion. Whatchu think?
EDIT: The perp is a provable zoosadist, I think they should get equivalent capital charges as for human homicides.
Originally posted by Lestov16
This is actually a really good question. It really depends on if it can be proven that the pet mattered just as much to their owner as a human relationship and the premeditation of the pet's murder, and even then they could get charged as a murder of passion. Whatchu think?EDIT: The perp is a provable zoosadist, I think they should get equivalent capital charges as for human homicides.
I don't think the charge should be murder.
Most people consider pets a part of the family.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I don't know , dadudemon. Have you seen Lestov's posts where he is screaming in all caps that Trump is literally the antichrist? Sounds pretty retarded to me.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I know you're trying to argue that Kyle's actions were actually beneficial, I just don't see it. While there is more violence going on that BOTH Dems and Repubs are criticizing, the public view seems to show Trump as the instigator, as show by the remarks of the Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor
You should check out libertarian and conservative social media stuff to see what I mean. Kyle's actions are being praised quite vehemently as the correct actions to take against the rioters. You'll see that it greatly helped their causes and the memes abound about how to deal with them. And they are raging buttmad at the prosecutor for trying to charge Kyle.
More specifically, I saw one tweet that said something like 'He tried to run away and that wasn't even enough. He was right to defend himself.' That's a gross paraphrase.
The Murder Charges Against Kyle Rittenhouse Are a Joke | Contradictory and Incomplete
Another great video from Matt Christiansen. Worth watching, only 11 minutes long.
Originally posted by Surtur
What do you think should be done in the case of a pet? What if someone shoots and kills another person in order to protect their dog from harm?
Depends on the person and situation.
Here is one such recent example:
29-year-old Omaha man suffered a gunshot wound Tuesday night after he allegedly broke into a house and attempted to steal two dogs.Omaha police said the man was shot by a resident of a home near 48th and Miami Streets just before midnight. Police arrested the man a short time later on suspicion of attempted robbery after he walked into the Nebraska Medical Center with a gunshot injury.
He was treated and released, police said. He was then booked into the Douglas County Jail.
Terrior Richardson, 29, who lives at the house just east of the Benson neighborhood, told police that a man entered the home and tried to take the dogs at gunpoint. The resident was able to take the gun away from the man, who was shot during the struggle.
Douglas County Court records show that the wounded man is awaiting trial in two felony cases, robbery and criminal impersonation.
But this has the circumstance of the robber using a gun that was taken from him but his "rob-ee" and then shot with the same damn gun.
I think you mean if an unarmed person tries to steal your pet. Same vein, if someone is harming your pet to the point that your pet's life is in danger. Some would say you have a duty to protect your pet because it is a member of your family.
This org, who is entrenched in pet-related-law and treating pets like people, would definitely agree that letting your dog get beaten to death is not the actions of a good pet owner:
https://aldf.org/issue/animals-legal-status/
Nevertheless, despite the groundbreaking leaps forward in our understanding of the intelligence and rich emotional and social lives of nonhuman animals, animals are still defined within the United States legal system as property — more akin to inanimate objects than living beings. This status significantly limits their legal protections from cruelty and neglect. This is why the Animal Legal Defense Fund is working to elevate animals’ legal status beyond mere property.
Oh, I forgot.
@Lestov: some are positing that the prosecutor is throwing the murder 1 charges at Kyle because they know Kyle will get acquitted very easily. It's just a way to minimize the rioting and looting from this case as they (the rioters and looters) cannot use Kyle's self-defense murder dismissal to riot and loot, more. "They won't even prosecute? ONWARDS TO TARGET AND POOR PEOPLE'S BUSINESS TO GET JUSTICE!"
This argument holds some ground, in my opinion. It is a legit argument because the case for murder 1 is impossible. I think this is just a strategy.
But they are also messing around with a young man's life by using him as a chess piece which could also land them in a litigious situation post-acquittal if anyone utters a peep that confirms this theory.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, I forgot.@Lestov: some are positing that the prosecutor is throwing the murder 1 charges at Kyle because they know Kyle will get acquitted very easily. It's just a way to minimize the rioting and looting from this case as they (the rioters and looters) cannot use Kyle's self-defense dismissal to riot and loot, more. This argument holds some ground, in my opinion. It is a legit argument because the case for murder 1 is impossible. I think this is just a strategy.
But they are also messing around with a young man's life by using him as a chess piece which could also land them in a litigious situation post-acquittal if anyone utters a peep that confirms this theory.
The notes from the prosecuting attorney specifically stated Kyle was retreating and not attacking, the defense could practically copy and paste the prosecutors notes and slap defense on the title......almost 😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
You should check out libertarian and conservative social media stuff to see what I mean.Kyle's actions are being praised quite vehemently as the correct actions to take against the rioters. You'll see that it greatly helped their causes and the memes abound about how to deal with them. And they are raging buttmad at the prosecutor for trying to charge Kyle.More specifically, I saw one tweet that said something like 'He tried to run away and that wasn't even enough. He was right to defend himself.' That's a gross paraphrase.
Come on man. That's blatant confirmation bias. Instead of asking social media stuff, why not ask the person with Most Jurisdiction Over The Situation, AKA the Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor who outright stated that Trump sabotaging the state's peace effort? Note that as I said before about Kyle not needing to be there, the Lt. Governor's may not be that unfounded.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, I forgot.@Lestov: some are positing that the prosecutor is throwing the murder 1 charges at Kyle because they know Kyle will get acquitted very easily. It's just a way to minimize the rioting and looting from this case as they (the rioters and looters) cannot use Kyle's self-defense murder dismissal to riot and loot, more. "They won't even prosecute? ONWARDS TO TARGET AND POOR PEOPLE'S BUSINESS TO GET JUSTICE!"
This argument holds some ground, in my opinion. It is a legit argument because the case for murder 1 is impossible. I think this is just a strategy.
But they are also messing around with a young man's life by using him as a chess piece which could also land them in a litigious situation post-acquittal if anyone utters a peep that confirms this theory.
Check out the video I just posted, the prosecutors are already bungling this with that they say happened lol.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Come on man. That's blatant confirmation bias.
We are talking about two different things.
Recap:
You said: "I know you're trying to argue that Kyle's actions were actually beneficial, I just don't see it."
So I said: "You should check out libertarian and conservative social media stuff to see what I mean."
Because the people, not anti-Trumpers, clearly see the Kyle situation as beneficial to various causes that do not align with anti-Trumper positions.
That's not confirmation bias: that's me directing you to places so you can see where people state rather popularly that Kyle's situation as beneficial to their causes.
Also, no offense, but as you saw by George Zimmerman, the legal outcome doesn't mean shit at this point. He's already been tried in the eye of the public, and considering the tense political situation he put himself in the middle of, he's going to be in trouble no matter what. You honestly don't think that even if he was released free today, he wouldn't have 1,000 BLM goons staking out his house, and 1,000 Trumpyard militia defending his house? Anywhere he goes in public is going to automatically become a warzone.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Also, no offense, but as you saw by George Zimmerman, the legal outcome doesn't mean shit at this point. He's already been tried in the eye of the public, and considering the tense political situation he put himself in the middle of, he's going to be in trouble no matter what. You honestly don't think that even if he was released free today, he wouldn't have 1,000 BLM goons staking out his house, and 1,000 Yard militia defending his house? Anywhere he goes in public is going to automatically become a warzone.
Correct: when Zimmerman was acquitted, there wasn't rioting and looting.
The prosecutors, dragging out the inevitable acquittal of Rittyboy through a nonsense murder 1 charge, are only doing so to quell current civil unrest or at least prevent it from being used as an excuse for the rioters and looters to commit more violence and crimes due Kyle's release without charges.
So they charged him. It will last about a year, long enough for this to blow over.