“ Could Missouri’s ‘stand your ground’ law apply to the Super Bowl celebration shooters?”

Did it, didn’t take much to show you errored

 

Once again, this is not about Rittenhouse, nor Stand Your Ground, but the intended self defense argument, the same logic used in cases as Rittenhouse and Zimmerman, the attorneys for the two dimwits intend on using in their case

 

Just another baseless assertion. Duly noted.

 

How does self defense relate to shooting 20 unarmed folks who were running away? And since the assertion that the two youths were trying to shoot each other in self defense, since they did not, shooting unarmed bystanders does seem to entirely unwind your assertion. Attempting to tie this to other instances, as noted is equally problematic. The facts will likely turn out that two gang members or drug dealers had an altercation that led to the death of one and injury of scores of others. Not likely that a self defense will work for those charges. But you never know, Kansas City isn't known for it's good jurisprudence any more.

 

My post was refuting your claim

Which never happened. He shot his attackers point blank

 

Why did you refer to Rittenhouse in your OP?

 

Well of course they are. It doesn't mean they think it'll work. Its probably the only strategy they could come up with. Doesnt mean its a good one.

You do know that some lawyers will sometimes defend from a position they know itsn't true, if its the only chance to help their client ...right? Its kinda their job.

 

Rittenhouse was not a stand your ground defense. It was simply a self defense case. Particularly since Wisconsin does not have a stand your ground law.

Additionally SYG laws are generally for pre-trial motions. It asks the judge to dismiss the case based on it. In the pre-trial motion the defendant bears the burden of proof and only requires a preponderance level of proof. In any case, While initially Zimmermans defense team did consider using SYG laws they rejected the idea (Zimmerman even waived his right to attempt it in pre-trial motion) and never once brought it up in the trial, relying purely on self defense laws.

 

Because now a days for gun control advocates if anyone defends themselves outside of their home then the only possible self defense claim refers to stand your ground laws. Its a way to try and eventually get it removed from laws by convincing people its bad law. Its far easier to poo poo a law that allows you to defend yourself outside your home than it is to poo poo castle doctrine laws.

 

The intended self defense is stand your ground laws...so not sure why you're saying that this isn't about it.

Also, neither of the Rittenhouse or Zimmerman cases applied SYG by the defense teams. So no, not the same logic.

 

Nah, the OP just referred to Rittenhouse because he believed it was decided based on SYG laws. Of which Wisconsin doesn't even have SYG laws. So in a way you are right that Rittenhouse is irrelevant here. But since the OP brought them up, its relevant to this thread.

 

Funny thing…. That is the OP you’re responding to. So the OP brought it up and now asks who’s doing that?

 

those cases did not need SYG to be resolved the way they were. Thuggin Martin was violently assaulting Zimmerman and the mopes Rittenhouse shot engaged in actions that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the use of force was needed to prevent that reasonable person from being subjected to a severe threat of imminent bodily harm