Nah, he was illegally "defending" property that didn't belong to him (silly Wisconsin values human lives [even 'thugs'] more than used cars).

He was illegally practicing medicine by soliciting people and asking if they needed first aid. WI code allows for unlicensed medicine practice in an emergency ONLY (how do we know he was offering services absent an emergency? He was turned down repeatedly, aka there was no emergency where someone needed forst aid). Walking around offering first aid services is illegal without a license. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/448/ii/03

He illegally purchased a firearm through his uncle because he was under age.

He illegally was out past curfew for people 17 and under.

Gee, given all his lack of training and experience and maturity, I wonder why these things are illegal? Oh right, because someone so immature and ignorant of the law or disobedient of the law is more likely to be dangerous and kill someone when it's not warranted.


====

You can't escape the fact that WI law dictates that if he's already doing anything illegal he MUST exhaust all other reasonable options BEFORE using deadly force.

HE DID NOT DO SO. Someone fired a round in the air, someone lunged, and he killed em. Tangeal witnesses hear "he shot someone!" And give chase. He kills another. Why no empathy for the people who suspected he was a "thug" and tried to vigilante justice him?



And
And
And
ANOTHER THING
It's really ugly to witness the duality of your flippant attitude towards people trying to legally claim asylum 'they broke the law' because they went to the wrong entry point because they speak fucking Portuguese and don't always know exactly where they are out in the Mexico desert.
Vs the bizarre justification you're trying to make for this kid who 'broke the law' in, I contend, a series of more serious laws that warrant criminal liability.

If this kid gets off I hope he moves to NC and you run into him once he gets his highway patrol car. You can have him.

I'll take the family in Afghanistan I'm trying to help who, you know, don't get off on killing people.

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

He illegally owned a gun, and was doing some vigilante justice (also illegal), and was out as a 17 year old in Wisconsin past curfew

"No minor under the age of seventeen years shall be or remain in or upon any of the streets, alleys, other public places, or any private place held open to the public in the county between twelve o'clock midnight and five a.m., unless accompanied by a parent"

Then he killed several people by shooting them with an assault rifle.

I can appreciate your concern. I went by the description of the video and the title. I can't be certain beyond that.

It is fairly well known that child molesters are not going to have a easy stay in incarceration, at least here in the USA. Vigilante justice happens to them frequently unless they request protective custody, which I understand many do.

If this cop was 8 years in service i doubt this was the first time he has ever been spit on.

Not saying the child was an angel, and maybe he deserved it. But this is basically vigilante justice - sth which especially the police WILL FINALLY have to adjust to now that cameras are everywhere.

The police are so used to getting away with cerain things that they basically have to relearn their profession (which, again might be hard after 8 years, but is that a valid defense ?).

Cop apologist. As if being stupid is some justification for being beaten down like this. People are considered stupid for a reason. Doesn't mean they deserve this abhorrent type treatment from those who are suppose to serve and protect and be better then that. Shes an idiot and he deserves the most extreme vigilante justice for being a cunt of the worst kind. *angry*

We get all, you should have known better(sanctimonious) when its someone you don't know but if this was your child, there is no way you would be telling your kid, your disfigured crushed face is justice for your immature behavior.

-edit-
At what age is it appropriate to hit your/a child for disobeying or rebelling in some way against you as an elder, adult or parent.

The Punisher! Vigilante justice.

I'm one of the few people who liked Affleck as Daredevil. The first time I saw the scene where he (Daredevi) let the bad guy get run over by a subway in an act of outfight vigilante justice I was impressed with his bad-assery. I thought then that he would make a good Batman. Prophetic.

I don't see this video in terms of good or bad guys, more like multiple shades of idiot.

Tail-gating, vigilante justice as a result (though it's totally possible there was a legitimate reason for breaking that fast that we don't know of), and more tail-gating/inattention from behind.

Though my definition of tail-gating is more along the lines of not providing yourself sufficient space to break and avoid a split-second collision rather than "he can see my headlights so I'm good".

@blankfist

Detroit is already trying out completely underfunding and underemployment police staffs. They took the police force from 5000 down to 2000. Now, The average wait time for response from 911 calls is 58 minutes, and from 2010-2011, the murder rate is up 15%

YAY LIBERTARIAN BULLSHIT THAT HELPED THIS SITUATION: http://thegrio.com/2012/02/11/detroit-vigilante-justice-is-now-in-vogue-as-city-cuts-back-on-cops/

Like @ChaosEngine, I'm on the fence on this one. Not because I'm defensive of the WBC's freedom to speak: I think their freedom's have been protected and maintained far enough, as far as the US government has been involved. I think a little vigilante justice is due here.

I'm on the fence because first and foremost the WBC are trolls, and trolls love attention. Worse, they are lawyers, and lawyers love having reason to sue people.

@spoco2

I'm in no way arguing --nor is anybody else, that I see-- that this is a good model moving forward for dealing with bad guys. My question was whether this particular video should be sifted. I wanted to sift it for its topicality, its newsworthiness, and the fodder for discussion it would provide. At the same time, I could see people objecting to its presence on the site since it's also a call for flash mob vigilante justice from a group not selected by the public.

Very funny, very ironic. funniest because it's true. It was designed to threaten. Anonymous knows this though, and don't play within the rules. I'm sure they've got a plan for keeping this live. While I don't believe in vigilante justice, I also believe that if you do something bad to someone, you waive the right to expect others not to do that same bad thing to you, at least not until you show sincere contrition.>> ^BoneRemake:

I find thid message extremely funny.
Ironic in a sense ?
"
This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten.
"

I don't think the point of outing these people was vigilante justice. That could be a possible result, but I don't think it was the point and I don't think the fact that some people might do the wrong thing means that society should do the wrong thing and prevent the victim from telling her story.

The story is about a victim who - under threat of punishment - still insisted on making us aware of what happened to her, and let's face it - these commentators aren't responsible for that information being available. Anyone who wants to be a vigilante can get that information regardless of internet commentators.

No one has a right to punish these people except the legal system. Even with a ruling protecting the perpetrators, those men should not be permitted to expect to have their crimes hidden from the world. Now we see that threatening the victim does not put a guarantee on perpetrators having their crimes go unnoticed by society. This story makes me wonder how many other victims have been subjected to this sort of arrangement and chose to be bullied into silence.