What should be the correct legal verdict in the Rittenhouse case?

…and I think I agree with this. Golly…it’s Friday…cheers. :sunglasses: :tumbler_glass:

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

Correct. Has nothing to do with 2a.

Self defense v murder.

Allan

States rights. It’s clear the Wisconsin law is constitutional.

Allan

Thought I read he got the gun from a friend in Wisconsin.

2 Likes

the mindset or intent of the person getting shot is irrelevant to the charge against the shooter. all that is relevant is the mindset of the shooter. was he in fear for his life or bodily injury?

Wouldn’t that be a separate charge?

since it is the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms and no level of government may infringe upon that, i guess we’ll have to assume you believe minors are not “the people” and have no rights of their own. that rights exercized on their behalf are actually their parents rights being extended to them and that minors are not included in “the people” until they reach the age of majority (a standard we should return to).

1 Like

Yes. As I said in the post you’re responding to, it depends on the circumstances - specifically, whether a reasonable person in their shoes would rationally fear for their lives.

Would it be “self-defense” if a 200lb man shot an unarmed 100lb woman intent on assaulting him?

1 Like

it is, and the fact that he’s being charged as an adult should negate it. you can’t say he’s an adult to charge him for a crime that only exists if he’s not an adult.

1 Like