Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I just edited my previous post. The source that I found, and relies on the prosecutor, said that he was being attacked during the first shooting too.no that was the second person he shot
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I just edited my previous post. The source that I found, and relies on the prosecutor, said that he was being attacked during the first shooting too.no that was the second person he shot
Which would not have been necessary usually. But if you saw the videos of that night you would know it was necessary then. Desperate times, desperate measures. And besides it's not illegal in many places to just be on the sidewalk with a gun if you have the proper permit.That's vigilantism.
Or in some states without any permit at all. Open carry is allowed in most states. It is a concealed weapon that usually needs a permit.Which would not have been necessary usually. But if you saw the videos of that night you would know it was necessary then. Desperate times, desperate measures. And besides it's not illegal in many places to just be on the sidewalk with a gun if you have the proper permit.
Maybe a fine for being a minor, so not legal to carry in that state, but otherwise he should be cleared.I disagree. I would not go that far. But if the prosecutor makes the same error that they have made in some other overly politicized trials he just might. I think that they could legitimately get a reckless endangerment judgment against him at the least.
I am not sure what sort of reckless endangerment laws that Wisconsin has, but bringing a gun to a protest, by anyone, does not seem to be a good idea to me. By the way, if the get Rittenhouse for reckless endangerment they would have to go after at least two of the protesters that were known to be armed.Maybe a fine for being a minor, so not legal to carry in that state, but otherwise he should be cleared.
What upset me was that the news immediately got everything wrong and reported it anyway and immediately labeled him a white supremacist for no reason whatsoever.They lie because they can. It's a typical behavior trait by the leftist regime.
They ignore that it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
It's arguable that a person can be drivin and a victim of minuplation yet to be determined.
I don't see how a fair trial can be held if predetermined notions are made as fact. Not to mention freedom of speech.
Looks like Kangaroo Kourt is in session.
Bringing a gun to a riot to protect a car dealership you mean.I am not sure what sort of reckless endangerment laws that Wisconsin has, but bringing a gun to a protest, by anyone, does not seem to be a good idea to me. By the way, if the get Rittenhouse for reckless endangerment they would have to go after at least two of the protesters that were known to be armed.
What upset me was that the news immediately got everything wrong and reported it anyway and immediately labeled him a white supremacist for no reason whatsoever.
Yes. Not the brightest move ever. That is vigilantism. That is why he could be possibly charged with recklessly endangering safety. Though that law of Wisconsin's appears to be rather vague.Bringing a gun to a riot to protect a car dealership you mean.
whether he was attacked or not its not self defense to shoot someone thats unarmed and running away from you in the back, unless you're a copI just edited my previous post. The source that I found, and relies on the prosecutor, said that he was being attacked during the first shooting too.
Unless they are going charge everyone else that was doing the same thing it hardly seems like a fair ruling.Yes. Not the brightest move ever. That is vigilantism. That is why he could be possibly charged with recklessly endangering safety. Though that law of Wisconsin's appears to be rather vague.
Yes they should charge all the other people that killed two innocent people themselvesUnless they are going charge everyone else that was doing the same thing it hardly seems like a fair ruling.
There were no innocent looters.Yes they should charge all the other people that killed two innocent people themselves
only a small percent of the demonstrators were looters and there is no evidence the two killed were lootingThere were no innocent looters.
The evidence appears to show that no "innocent" people were killed. Attacking someone and trying to take a gun from someone takes away claims of innocence.Yes they should charge all the other people that killed two innocent people themselves
But the police themselves indicate that he was not running away from him. The first man was shot when he tried to take away his weapon. Did you read the links that I provided?whether he was attacked or not its not self defense to shoot someone thats unarmed and running away from you in the back, unless you're a cop
Things change when they're attackers though.Does it matter, they were shot, someone who is shot is a "victim" of shooting
do your research, he was shot in the backBut the police themselves indicate that he was not running away from him. The first man was shot when he tried to take away his weapon. Did you read the links that I provided?
I did my research. I posted that fact. One of the shots went in his back. So what?do your research, he was shot in the back