Eric Cartman wrote: » thats the purpose of the rule not the text of it. I was trying to explain that there are legal ways for a 17 year old to open carry somebody elses gun there. ofcourse his defence won't be hunting.
Leroy42 wrote: » The line of duty is the bit you seem to be ignoring. But hey I get it. You think it is reasonable for him to have gone there with a loaded weapon. I assume that when BLM turn up with loaded weapons and start shooting you will be as understanding.
Eric Cartman wrote: » you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what was he hunting for?
Penn wrote: » What was he hunting?
Eric Cartman wrote: » he was there to defend a building, not attack it. BLM have been showing up with weapons, including that felon who pointed a handgun at Kyle and was popped in the arm, that man was illegally carrying a weapon.
Eric Cartman wrote: » I love how both of you glossed over my explanation that that was the statutes intention, not text, but if you go to my last post on this you'll see a quote from the actual statute that explains that somebody over 16 being loaned a rifle is absolutely legal.
joeguevara wrote: » Was the rifle registered in that state, as the law you have posted is state law and specifically relates to owner of said rifle having registered in that state loaning it. If not registered there, federal law applies and must be transported in compliance with federal law by the registered owner and not the borrowee. Secondly, the hunting argument seems to be finished after his attorney made it clear that if Rittenhouse didn’t bring it into city he would die. This case will be solely on 2nd amendment and self defence. Self defence is difficult to argue as protection of a third party is not self defence and knowingly going into a dangerous situation with a rifle falls outside it. 2nd amendment argument is much more complex. And at this stage impossible to know what exactly could happen.
Leroy42 wrote: » So you are defending him because you think he is right? Really? You agree that he had no choice but to kill those people? That he had no choice but to turn up with a loaded weapon? He had no business going there, he had no business bringing a gun. I assume you would defend BLM or other protestors rights to assault police officers if they feel under threat? That is the logical conclusion of your position. That pretty much anyone can do anything one they feel under threat. I know you don't believe that, because you have said that the protestors are out of order. So what is the real reason you are out to defend this guy?
Eric Cartman wrote: » you were phrasing that to imply that just handing a 17 year old a gun is a bad idea. Im explaining that this is handing a firearm to somebody experienced with firearms, id rather have had a gun handed to an enthusiast like Kyle with experience and training than a random person over the age of 21 with none of that.
Eric Cartman wrote: » the rifle was owned and registered in the state, it didn't cross state lines, the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse. The gun didn't cross state lines, as it was a rifle over 16" barrel it was legal to be loaned to Kyle as he was over 16, he had police cadet firearms training and was there to defend a building which covers the first shooting under castle laws. the second two shootings are the ones open to debate.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified..
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified. He had plenty of business going there as he was helping to defend a local business owners property. He had to bring a gun to protect himself from the violent mob that had burned down businesses and buildings the previous night. How else was he supposed to defend himself from the violent mob? He acted in self defense, BLM protesters are the agitators in the confrontations with the police so they can't be acting in self defense if they initiated the conflict so your twisted logic doesn't apply here.
Eric Cartman wrote: » the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.
Carfacemandog wrote: » Again, which city, state or federal body had hired hi ma's a "community lifeguard"? Or is this just a convenient job title his legal team have come up with that never formally existed/that he never actually held?
Quin_Dub wrote: » The 2nd Amendment argument is a defence against the charges relating to possession of the gun , it cannot be a defence against the use of the gun. As Leroy42 said though , the very idea that it's legal for people of any age or political persuasion to wander around the streets openly carrying a weapon is just utterly bizarre. That it is deemed ok in the middle of a riot is even more insane. I'm not anti-gun per se , but the utter disregard that there seems to be in the US for basic common sense when it comes to guns will never cease to baffle me.
Duty to Retreat in Wisconsin – Provocation While there is no specific statute addressing stand your ground, a few court cases have addressed whether individuals have a duty to retreat in Wisconsin. The general rule is that there is no affirmative duty to retreat, unless the individual provoked the confrontation. This general rule mirrors the self-defense statute. Let’s assume the individual provoked the attack. He is generally cannot claim self-defense. The only exception is when he believes he exhausted all other means of escape from the death or great bodily harm. For example, in Wisconsin, you started a fight. Shooter pulls out a gun in response to your physical and verbal actions. Again, you started the fight. Because of that, you must have a duty to retreat because you provoked the confrontation.Duty to Retreat in Wisconsin – No Provocation When the individual did not provoke the confrontation, the feasibility of retreat from the assailant is handled as an aspect of the general self-defense statute – specifically, whether the individual reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. A jury will be instructed to consider whether the individual had the opportunity to retreat, whether the opportunity was feasible, and whether the individual knew of the opportunity to retreat. Upon a satisfaction of the statutory requirements, courts should instruct juries that there is no duty to retreat. The jury will be instructed to not consider evidence relating to whether the individual had an opportunity to flee or retreat.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA. "Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html
Leroy42 wrote: » BLM would say that they are defending themselves against the aggression of the state. You see how easy it is to justify whatever position if you try hard enough. There is no justification for him going to that, there was no justification of him bringing gun. Self-defence is fine when you find yourself in a situation. Knowingly going into said situation, and bringing a gun because he was well aware of the risks, cannot be classed as self-defence. under that logic pretty much any murder can be excused.
duploelabs wrote: » I've worked many a summer as a lifeguard, never have I ever needed a rifle for my work
LessOutragePlz wrote: » BLM saying it doesn't make it true though. He was 100% justified in the actions he took that night as he was in fear for his life from the violent mob that was attacking him and chasing him down the street. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » not even for the people who pee in the pool?
Leroy42 wrote: » Totally agree. But neither does.you claiming he was at work, or defending himself or any other claim you can think of. You are spectacularly missing the point. The very claims you are making in defence of this guy can just as easily be used for pretty much anyone else. BLM or whatever. But you don't think it applies to BLM, so you're entire position falls apart. I could take it seriously if you applied it across the board, but you are not. You want to defend him and will find some excuse to do it. On the other hand, BLM or other protestors are wrong and as such deserve no benefit of the doubt.
