MadChemist
Platinum Member
- Sep 11, 2017
- 3,750
- 2,316
Here you are again, misinterpreting 939.48. THE PRESUMPTION (that deadly force was reasonable) does not apply if the actor was engaged in criminal activity. The PRESUMPTION does not apply, not the affirmative defense of self-defense.He was not allowed to be in possession of that gun since he wasn't hunting."That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."It's the law. Deal with it.That makes it a crime.I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.Did my post not say it was illegal ?
Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?
Then why repeat the question ?
It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.
The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...
So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?
That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.
This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.
Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.
Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.
Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.
That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.
If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.
He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.
Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.
(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...
And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.
He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.
He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.
And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.![]()
Please stop misstating and mischaracterizing law.
Hard to figure a murder one when you have film of someone running away from a group of people.
That they are pursing him is not in dispute.
Someone pushes him, he keeps running.
He is finally knocked to the ground.
He is hit with a skaetboard and kicked in the head.
Up that point, the gun has never been pointed at anyone.
That is not pre-mediated.