[Nemo]

Legal analysis and thought for everyone regarding Kenosha. Methinks all here will gain a new thought on the situation and how to react should they be there a couple hours before.

Nemo

https://amblerlawoffices.com/blog/f/four-lessons-from-kenosha

Four Lessons From Kenosha
August 27, 2020|2nd Amendment, guns

By now we have all seen the videos from Kenosha Wisconsin of riots (or "mostly peaceful protests") depending on which news network you watch. We have seen a young man named Kyle Rittenhouse give multiple interviews throughout the evening indicating that he was there to help out by "defending property." We then see Kyle get involved in two different shooting and arguable self-defense incidents, and finally we have seen headlines announcing that Kyle Rittenhouse has been charged with murder. Before we get into lessons learned, I need to point out that I am not a Wisconsin attorney. Because of this, I cannot specifically address how property can be defended in Wisconsin, how deadly force justification works in Wisconsin, or whether a 17 year old may lawfully open carry a weapon. However, there are still some major takeaways that we can synthesize from these events.

. . .

continued

 

[OWM]

Good advice.

 

[moe mensale]

https://amblerlawoffices.com/blog/f/four-lessons-from-kenosha

As a general rule, the law protects your right to defend your life, your well-being, and the life or well-being of others. The law asks whether you are defending against imminent near certain death or great bodily harm. If you put yourself in a position where you are defending property, and you openly admit that you were there to protect property, you should expect prosecutors to look at you skeptically.

I don't have a business property to defend today. I have my house and its occupants to be concerned about. Unless something has changed, I'm aware of only TX and MO "allowing" you to defend your property with lethal force through statute.

What is the general rule, if any, in GA if you're faced with a rabid mob rioting their way through your neighborhood attempting to burn and destroy every house they can, regardless if they're occupied or not? Am I required to stand aside with my dick in my hand and let the savages have their way and hope they leave us physically unharmed?

 

[45_Fan]

I don't have a business property to defend today. I have my house and its occupants to be concerned about. Unless something has changed, I'm aware of only TX and MO "allowing" you to defend your property with lethal force through statute.

What is the general rule, if any, in GA if you're faced with a rabid mob rioting their way through your neighborhood attempting to burn and destroy every house they can, regardless if they're occupied or not? Am I required to stand aside with my dick in my hand and let the savages have their way and hope they leave us physically unharmed?

Pull out your zip ties and start making citizens arrests?

 

[dhaller]

Was there a toxicology report on Rosenbaum?

I went to the Kenosha Co. medical examiner for autopsy/tox on Rosenbaum & friends, and here's the message:

"The death investigations for Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are open and ongoing. There is a non-disclosure on each case in order to protect the integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation, therefore, no information or reports will be released until the non-disclosures are lifted. Any requests for reports can be submitted using the email address provided under "Contact Us". The cost of reports are $ 0.10/page when applicable."

Interesting word choice: "death investigation"

That said, if I were a betting man, I'd wager big on "intoxicated" for Rosenbaum.

DH

 

[dhaller]

I don't have a business property to defend today. I have my house and its occupants to be concerned about. Unless something has changed, I'm aware of only TX and MO "allowing" you to defend your property with lethal force through statute.

What is the general rule, if any, in GA if you're faced with a rabid mob rioting their way through your neighborhood attempting to burn and destroy every house they can, regardless if they're occupied or not? Am I required to stand aside with my dick in my hand and let the savages have their way and hope they leave us physically unharmed?

It's pretty obvious that of an occupied house is destroyed, there's a high likelihood of injury or death to the occupants. You're defending yourself and your family by defending your residential property. Going to a business site which is otherwise not occupied (let's say you have a mechanic's shop which is closed at 11pm, when a riot occurs) I guess is a different matter.

I have a house in Atlanta (my tax address) and a house in Cartersville (where I go occasionally). If my family happens to be in one when it's attacked, I would obviously defend accordingly. If my family were in Atlanta, and I heard about a marauding band approaching Cartersville, and I drove up there to defend it, well... I guess that's arguable.

It might be worth calling the insurance agent and going over coverage specifics in this era of torch-wielding peasants.

DH

 

[Schweisshund]

 

[moe mensale]

Pull out your zip ties and start making citizens arrests?

That's not in my plans and won't be.

 

[moe mensale]

It's pretty obvious that of an occupied house is destroyed, there's a high likelihood of injury or death to the occupants. You're defending yourself and your family by defending your residential property. Going to a business site...

My question is strictly concerning defending a home, not a business. My plan is to act before it gets destroyed, not during or after. In other words, a preemptive strike. What can I do or not do? Where does GA draw the line? In a full scale riot or insurrection is there even a line to be crossed? Why should I let a pack of savages close on me when I have the means and ability to strike from stand-off distances?

It might be worth calling the insurance agent...

Ummm, no. I'm not discussing self-defense tactics with an insurance agent. That sounds like a good way to get your coverage cancelled or at least flagged.

 

[45_Fan]

That's not in my plans and won't be.

My question is strictly concerning defending a home, not a business. My plan is to act before it gets destroyed, not during or after. In other words, a preemptive strike. What can I do or not do? Where does GA draw the line? In a full scale riot or insurrection is there even a line to be crossed? Why should I let a pack of savages close on me when I have the means and ability to strike from stand-off distances?

Make up your mind. 16-3-23 sets out use of force in defense of habitation. If you want to be preemptive, get out the zip ties and go arrest. If you don't want to be preemptive, then don't.

If you just saw a mob string your neighbors up in a tree out front and feel concerned enough that you might be next then you mean to have a 16-3-21 discussion and not a defense of habitation one...

 

[OWM]

If you just saw a mob string your neighbors up in a tree out front

That is where long range practice come into play as well as SSS. Screw the zip ties.

 

[awanatech]

Make up your mind. 16-3-23 sets out use of force in defense of habitation. If you want to be preemptive, get out the zip ties and go arrest. If you don't want to be preemptive, then don't.

If you just saw a mob string your neighbors up in a tree out front and feel concerned enough that you might be next then you mean to have a 16-3-21 discussion and not a defense of habitation one...

The neighbors on which side of me?

 

[Nemo]

The neighbors on which side of me?

Yeah, same side or the other side?

Nemo

 

[jsaund22]

I'm aware of only TX and MO "allowing" you to defend your property with lethal force through statute.

This needs to change in Georgia, IMO. Your property represents a part (sometimes a very large part) of your life. You've traded your life, your time, for the money to be able to afford the property, and I believe you should be legally allowed to protect that investment of your life.

Yes, there is insurance, but ever deal with insurance companies? That's another part of your life you'll have to trade away to get back what you already had.

 

[45_Fan]

This needs to change in Georgia, IMO. Your property represents a part (sometimes a very large part) of your life. You've traded your life, your time, for the money to be able to afford the property, and I believe you should be legally allowed to protect that investment of your life.

You are permitted to defend your property today, just not with lethal force. The law only permits the use of lethal force to save a life. It is unlikely that there exists political will or popular opinion to reduce that standard any.

Yes, there is insurance, but ever deal with insurance companies? That's another part of your life you'll have to trade away to get back what you already had.

Un-killing a man is even harder.

 

[moe mensale]

Make up your mind. 16-3-23 sets out use of force in defense of habitation. If you want to be preemptive, get out the zip ties and go arrest. If you don't want to be preemptive, then don't.

Really? You consider going up to a group of "peaceful protesters" who are in the process of rioting and burning and attempt to put them in zip ties and make a citizen's arrest to be a viable tactic? How far do you think you'll get with that before you're road kill?

As for 16-3-23, unless I'm misreading it, it seems to apply only to the forcible entry or attempted forcible entry into a house. I don't see it applying to a scenario where the "peaceful protesters" only desire to remain outside and burn your house down and not actually enter it.

 

[moe mensale]

If you just saw a mob string your neighbors up in a tree out front and feel concerned enough that you might be next then you mean to have a 16-3-21 discussion and not a defense of habitation one...

That was never part of my scenario. I was quite clear in my question as to what I was concerned about. Preventing my house from getting burned down. Not my neighbors getting strung up. Don't change the parameters.

 

[45_Fan]

Really? You consider going up to a group of "peaceful protesters" who are in the process of rioting and burning and attempt to put them in zip ties and make a citizen's arrest to be a viable tactic? How far do you think you'll get with that before you're road kill?

As for 16-3-23, unless I'm misreading it, it seems to apply only to the forcible entry or attempted forcible entry into a house. I don't see it applying to a scenario where the "peaceful protesters" only desire to remain outside and burn your house down and not actually enter it.

That was never part of my scenario. I was quite clear in my question as to what I was concerned about. Preventing my house from getting burned down. Not my neighbors getting strung up. Don't change the parameters.

You asked for options. I provided viable legal options. You don't really have an option to use 16-3-23 preemptively but I think we agree on that. Because of how you stated your concern is why I mentioned 16-3-21.

 

[dhaller]

That was never part of my scenario. I was quite clear in my question as to what I was concerned about. Preventing my house from getting burned down. Not my neighbors getting strung up. Don't change the parameters.

I think 16-3-21 permits use of force to defend a third party, as well? You see folks stringing your neighbors up and I'm pretty sure you can forcefully intercede!

DH

 

[moe mensale]

You asked for options. I provided viable legal options. You don't really have an option to use 16-3-23 preemptively but I think we agree on that. Because of how you stated your concern is why I mentioned 16-3-21.

I'll make you a deal. We'll both go to a rip snorting, full on riot. By "peaceful protesters" of course. :righton: We'll each have a bag of zip ties which we'll use to perform citizen arrests with. I'm going to be totally unselfish and let you go first. :lol:

We might agree on 16-3-23 but I think it's wrong and should be amended to reflect the current reality. I don't really care about political will or popular opinion. If sh*t's going down, there's no way I'm letting anyone, let alone a savage crowd with no respect for life, get within throwing distance of me. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.