Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Question for someone who know OK self defense law.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Truckdriver" data-source="post: 3412189" data-attributes="member: 45123"><p>Devils Advocate:</p><p></p><p>I don't think there's a real defense for Kyle here based on one main factor. </p><p></p><p>He traveled from another state into a known area of rioting, armed and presumably with intent. In just about any state, you would lose on the idea that you simply cannot claim self defense when you go looking for trouble. He was "defending" himself after "poking the bear". Thats not self defense. </p><p></p><p>I don't see this ending well for Kyle, based on that one simple issue.</p><p></p><p>With Anti-Fa using that same tactic, and getting away with it, when those with "good intentions" try to use that tactic, today's attorneys and legal system will use that as a way to express its "unbiased" enforcement by standing this kid up and stating "he did just what the rioters in most other cities did. He traveled into a riot zone with intent to commit crime, regardless of of intent to protect instead of riot. He went looking for trouble and found it. Thats not self defense"</p><p></p><p>End Devils Advocate mode</p><p></p><p>All the above being said, I hope the justice system finds him not guilty, but I doubt they will</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Truckdriver, post: 3412189, member: 45123"] Devils Advocate: I don't think there's a real defense for Kyle here based on one main factor. He traveled from another state into a known area of rioting, armed and presumably with intent. In just about any state, you would lose on the idea that you simply cannot claim self defense when you go looking for trouble. He was "defending" himself after "poking the bear". Thats not self defense. I don't see this ending well for Kyle, based on that one simple issue. With Anti-Fa using that same tactic, and getting away with it, when those with "good intentions" try to use that tactic, today's attorneys and legal system will use that as a way to express its "unbiased" enforcement by standing this kid up and stating "he did just what the rioters in most other cities did. He traveled into a riot zone with intent to commit crime, regardless of of intent to protect instead of riot. He went looking for trouble and found it. Thats not self defense" End Devils Advocate mode All the above being said, I hope the justice system finds him not guilty, but I doubt they will [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Question for someone who know OK self defense law.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom