Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
And just because it involves risks doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.
When it comes to possibly putting your minor child in danger…you shouldn’t.
When he cleared up why he was in Kenosha…the cases was over.
Why wasn’t it clear from day 1 his father lived in Kenosha.
Kyle sues for damages.
Was he protecting his fathers house or business? Was he even in the same neighborhood?
Are you equally opposed to Biden putting minors in danger by encouraging illegal immigration?
Are you equally opposed to the Dems putting minors in danger by requiring children to be vaxxed?
Child services should take her now 18 year old son away from her.
Doesn’t matter. Connection was there. Family.
He should be able to put Young Turks out of business given they were calling him a racist and white supremacist for some unknown reason.
Did she “drop him off in a riot zone with an AR-15”?
These are two different subjects. Had the mother acted in the best interests of her son’s safety, this event would have never occurred. Since it did, the jury will decide. I agree though, it’s a great life lesson.
Start a thread on those situations…We’re talking about Rittenhouses mother putting HER minor son danger.
This thread is about which legal outcomes are appropriate. Stop telling people to “start another thread” when you’re just as off topic.
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.