There’s a video of what looks like somebody shooting somebody in the head. And a body.
Because he was on their side.
Very problematic.
I’m sure the cops didn’t know he shot anyone.
Just like the other cops didn’t know if that dude had a gun in his car.
Just saying - this kid HAS a gun. Walks away from a murder site, through cops.
The other guy…no one knew if he had a gun or not…7 shots in the back.
4 Likes
Well, except if the subject is a Democratic politician. Or a black guy shot by cops.
2 Likes
But not impossible. The crossing of state lines is irrelevant. If he is truly 17, the misdemeanor for possession is problematic.
Did you find the statute stating one cannot claim self-defense will illegally possessing the weapon?
Not here!
People are celebrating the fact that guy got shot 7 ties because…how did they put it? Something about him being a worthless sex offender. Something like that.
This forum rarely waits for a trial in some cases.
In others, it’s all ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
1 Like
Can’t help you there, that’s silly. My advice is not to participate in it.
Uttered in this thread without irony.
1 Like
An individual cannot claim self-defense if the homicide occurs during the commission of a crime.
That is universal. Innocence is a required element of a common-law self defense claim.
The crossing of state lines is relevant to this kids intent.
1 Like
That’s nice.
What have I said a black guy shot by cops is guilty of before trial?
Dem politicians are an abomination, but they are not criminals before conviction.
Show me the statute. Innocence of what?
Intent I will grant. It is irrelevant as to the legality of the posession of the weapon. Might want to look at Illinois possession by a minor laws. I just did. Be interesting to hear your take.
And we are assuming the kid is 17 because…?
It is not illegal to transport a rifle from Illinois into Wisconsin as far as I can tell. If someone has evidence to the contrary, please by all means…
I believe the kid answered a call to help defend property. Will know more soon enough.
Either way it was mob that acted like bunch of vigilantes.
It is relevant to a claim of self-defense.
As for the statute:
939.48(1m)(b) (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
939.48(1m)(b)1. 1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
Really?
1 Like
A call from who?
A property owner in Kenosha, or a right-wing militia?
No, the mob acted as a riot.
And other people there also had guns. In fact the guy that was rendering aid to guy shot in arm also had one.
And cops knew Blake had warrant out for his arrest.
So rioting is bad now?
