This thread is about which legal outcomes are appropriate. Stop telling people to “start another thread” when you’re just as off topic.
1 Like
From my perspective it would seem the tricky part of any self defense plea is depending upon the situation at what point is it fair for someone to believe that the intent of the aggressor (so to speak) is to inflict harm? In other words a person testifying on the behalf of the “aggressor” could claim that their intent was to just get in the person’s face or in this case to simply disarm Rittenhouse.
One of the things I was curious about was whether it was relevant if the gun belonged to the person or not and if the Second Amendment had any bearing on that?
So is there such a thing as “excessive self-defense” (not sure how to word it) in such cases?
So your view would be a justifiable case of self defense?
This discussion is better suited for this other thread:
He acted in self defense is the only logical verdict.
I think I agree with this. I am glad they showed the actual court room events on TV. It seems most people who want him convicted fall back to he shouldn’t have been there and he shouldn’t have had a gun to begin with. While both may be true, neither should get you convicted of murder.
1 Like
…and I think I agree with this. Golly…it’s Friday…cheers. 
What puts acting in the best interests of someone’s “safety” at the top of the pyramid of moral responsibilities. What about acting in the interests of someone’s maturation.
This is actually the false dichotomy the globalist authoritarians are using to steal individual freedom. The technocrats are saying, “Surrender your individual freedom to us and we will use our technology to keep you safe.”
Create chaos to make people feel unsafe, and then offer to impose safety on the fearful.
1 Like
None of us like to have our hypocrisies exposed. I understand.
You want to make a man out of him? Fine…Let him go sign up and serve…Don’t let him go out and play soldier out in the streets.
1 Like
Exactly. The government was not doing its job to protect citizens and their property from rioters and looters.
Citizens have to fill that void, or hand their cities over to the lawless.
Citizens put themselves between property and looters who have no respect for others and who have assaulted citizens and their businesses, so protectors bring weapons to defend themselves if their lives are threatened for being in the way.
They are being threatened with death for being in the way.
They are physically attacked for preventing damage.
One angry rioter among those who had threatened to kill the protectors tries to disarm a protector so that he will not longer be able to protect himself and possible be killed as threatened. He gets shot. Self-defense.
A second rioters attacks the protector with a skateboard to the head as the protector makes his way to the castrated police line. In trying to stomp on the protector’s head he is shot. Self-defense.
A third rioter points a loaded pistol at the protectors head and is shot. Self-defense.
At no point was the weapon fired to defend property.
2 Likes
At no point was he legally carrying that weapon.
Does the 2nd Ammendment include an age limit?
Wisconsin law does…
My read of the Wisconsin possession by a minor law is that the mother is actually guilty of a more serious crime than the kid. It is a class H felony (for which she could get 6 years in prison) for the mother to have allowed the kid to possess the rifle and using it to kill someone.
Dee section 948.6
1 Like
Doesn’t trump the Constitution. He will probably still get in trouble for having an “illegal” gun. But even that doesn’t change whether or not it was self defense.
Obviously it does, or it would have been challenged already and ruled unconstitutional.
that depends on whether you were in fear for your life or bodily injury. you most certainly can if the situation justifies it. a 5’1" 110lb woman can shoot a 6’ 210lb man intent on assaulting her.
please, get your money back, you wasted it
1 Like
