If you're a minor, and cross state lines armed, into a state which does not permit minors to BE armed, you're a criminal and that's the starting point. He then went looking for trouble. If you poke a bear, expect to get bitten.
Actually, that's not how the laws work. If you're legal in your state of residence, you are legal crossing state lines.
Similar to how "gay marriage" worked, crossing state lines. If you were legally married in one state - you were still legally married in other states, even if they didn't allow "gay marriage". (I don't know if there are still states that don't allow "gay marriage".)
If you bring an AR-15 to a riot, you come looking for trouble. Rittenhouse found it. Unfortunately, I believe he's going to get off. That judge is a farce and should be removed from the bench.
This post was edited by SpunkySenior at November 16, 2021 10:02 AM MST
You came looking to defend yourself if needed. Which it proved to be....he was chased, shot fired at, rocks thrown at his head, kicked in the head, hit in the head with a skateboard etc. While trying to run to the police for help.
Uh-huh. Anyone who was not looking for trouble would have left the scene. If he thought those folks were there merely to peacefully protest, why would he think he'd need a gun - and an AR-15 at that?
He was there to help defend that business. In his town...his Dad lives in Kenocha. He was trying to leave the scene by running to the police. They, the protestors were chasing him while threatening him. And the hitting him while he was on the ground.
The PA believes Rittenhouse should have stopped and fought the mob with his fists....he would have been killed.
Problem is law enforcement was not doing it. And the community asked for help. Police knew they were there and said they had every right to be. No one should be expected to watch as rioters destroy a town. BLM came to my town to protest. We had plenty of guys out there with their ARs letting them know that their BS rioting was not going to happen here.
If the Governor would have stepped up and called the NG...this crap would not have happened. Supposedly they are on the ready now.
This post was edited by my2cents at November 16, 2021 1:38 PM MST
Preventing a crime is not vigilante. Viliantes take it upon themselves to punish a criminal.
If I see someone breaking into my neighbour's house and I run over and stop them. (Even with my gun) I am not being a vigilante unless I also decide to shoot them as they RUN away.
If someone stops a rape in progress, are they being a vigilante or a good Samaritan?
a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
You, yourself said that Rittenhoiuse was there to protect his father's property. Had his father's property been vandalized or had his father been threatened by the rioters? If so, did he or his father call the police?
If you see someone breaking into your neighbors house, your responsibility it so call the police and let them take care of it.
Stopping a rape in progress by scaring the rapist away is being a good citizen. Shooing the rapist with your gun is being a vigilante.
It was not Rittenhouse's Father's property. It was the town he lives in....so he felt he should help protect people and businesses in that town.
Why is preventing/stopping a rape being a good citizen but preventing/stopping property theft.or damage being a viligante? Neither is being a viligante unless the person "takes the law into their own hands" or becomes the judge, jury and executioner. It is about deciding not to just prevent/stop a crime but to CATCH and/or PUNISH the person committing the crime.
This post was edited by my2cents at November 17, 2021 6:00 AM MST
However, according to numerous court rulings, the police have NO legal duty to actually protect anyone (or prevent crime) UNLESS that person has a "special relationship" with the police. EG: They are in custody or informant.
That is why there are so many instances, many on video, of police allowing rioters to destroy property - despite witnessing the crime.
That is also why so many people with restraining orders continue to be victims of the person named in the order.
That may be so, but it still doesn't give a person the right to fill in for the police. He should have removed himself from the riot when it got so out of hand.
According to witnesses and video, he was helping injured people and helping put out fires.
Surprising, there apparently is no video of the confrontation between him and the first person killed. If there is, neither side appears to know about it, as they would both want it to bolster their case. The DA claims Rittenhouse started the confrontation, the defense claims Rosenburg did - and attempted to take Rittenhouse's firearm by force.
At that point, use of deadly force is authorized for police - who allegedly have professional training in retaining their firearms - because it is a threat to their life. Thus, it is reasonable for a civilian to also use deadly force in self defense.
Those are moot points as I believe he should not have (a) come to the riot loaded for bear and (b) should have left when he saw how violent it was getting.
This post was edited by my2cents at November 17, 2021 6:00 AM MST
Slartibartfast 