New Strategy From Rittenhouse Defense Team; He Was Just Hunting

[M14 Shooter]

I think he is saying that you can be in unlawful possession of a firearm; kill someone in self defense....win on the grounds of self defense, but still be subject to charges of unlawful possession...
For example, a story recently made famous by Dave Chappelle about a rapper who was cleared of murder charges due to self defense....but still found guilty of unlawful carry of a concealed weapon...

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article221426465.html

Correct
"You cant claim self-defens when committing a crime " refers to robbing a bank, raping the farmers daughter, selling drugs, evading the police, or other such things.

If you, a felon and otherwise obeying the law, are attacked, grab the gun from one of yoru assilants, and shoot one or more of your assailants, your claims of self-defense is not negated by the fact you illegally possessed a firearm.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

And you have no sense of humor, do you?

A Trump supporter saying they will vote for someone just because they killed someone isn't a joke.....especially when one of those morons is a sitting Congressman

Republican lawmaker calls for teenager on trial for murder to be elected to Congress

Anthony Sabatini’s comment sparks demands for his resignation

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Rogue AI]

I think he is saying that you can be in unlawful possession of a firearm; kill someone in self defense....win on the grounds of self defense, but still be subject to charges of unlawful possession...

For example, a story recently made famous by Dave Chappelle about a rapper who was cleared of murder charges due to self defense....but still found guilty of unlawful carry of a concealed weapon...

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article221426465.html

That's my whole point, self defense is legal whether the gun is or not. It doesn't matter, too many people already decided this case, I'll wait for the jury.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

That's my whole point, self defense is legal whether the gun is or not. It doesn't matter, too many people already decided this case, I'll wait for the jury.

When he is acquitted...do you also believe he should run for Congress or the presidency because of this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When he is acquitted...do you also believe he should run for Congress or the presidency because of this?

7 / 17 years from now?

 

[Correll]

When he is acquitted...do you also believe he should run for Congress or the presidency because of this?

The level of responsibility and bravery shown, would make him a good candidate imo.


Plus, it would make the lefty heads explode, so that is a plus.

 

[meaner gene]

You posted your opinion. How about you provide some evidence to back it up.

I think he is saying that you can be in unlawful possession of a firearm; kill someone in self defense....win on the grounds of self defense, but still be subject to charges of unlawful possession...

For example, a story recently made famous by Dave Chappelle about a rapper who was cleared of murder charges due to self defense....but still found guilty of unlawful carry of a concealed weapon...

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article221426465.html

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The level of responsibility and bravery shown, would make him a good candidate imo.


Plus, it would make the lefty heads explode, so that is a plus.

As usual with you folks, its only feelings, not policies....

As usual, its the need to trigger the libs...if not breathing air triggered the libs, yo dumb ass would suffocate yourself to death

What if he wanted to pass universal health care?

Would that be ok as long as he promises not to let "libs" have it?

 

[meaner gene]

Yes, but if the prosecution makes the case that his going there was "looking for trouble", all the defense has to do is point out that there is a reasonable doubt that he MIGHT have just wanted to deter rioters from destroying the building.

You make an interesting point.
What if someone went into Washington DC on January 6th, and started shooting protesters breaking into the Capitol.

Would you take the same position?

 

[Correll]

As usual with you folks, its only feelings, not policies....

As usual, its the need to trigger the libs...if not breathing air triggered the libs, yo dumb ass would suffocate yourself to death

What if he wanted to pass universal health care?

Would that be ok as long as he promises not to let "libs" have it?

Errr, did you miss the FIRST TWO points I made about his character as demonstrated by his behavior?


The "trolling" aspect was a bonus afterthought.


If it turns out that despite his good character, that his policies were ill advised, then his initially good image would be adjusted accordingly.


REally, that this needs explained to you, is really alarming.


How would you handle it, if someone that looked good to you for some reason, on closer examination turned out to be "less good"?

Just stand by your initial assessment despite new data?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You make an interesting point.
What if someone went into Washington DC on January 6th, and started shooting protesters breaking into the Capitol.

According to the lunatic left, Jan 6 was an armed protest.
Thus, they would have shot back.

 

[Muhammed]

LOL

So your argument is that Rittenhouse was engaged in target practice or a course of instruction as he walked the streets of Kenosha that night while armed with a rifle??

Yes. There's nothing in the law that says that a 17 year old member of the U.S. militia walking the streets armed along with adult fellow U.S. militia members who have more experience does not constitute a traditional course of instruction.

In fact, the law does not define what does and does not constitute a traditional course of instruction. Therefore it is extremely ambiguous.

SCOTUS has already ruled that if a criminal law is ambiguous, the court must rule in favor of the defendant.

The entire case should be dismissed. Kyle should have never even been charged and the crooked prosecutor knows that.

 

[meaner gene]

You make an interesting point.
What if someone went into Washington DC on January 6th, and started shooting protesters breaking into the Capitol.

Would you take the same position?

According to the lunatic left, Jan 6 was an armed protest.
Thus, they would have shot back.

Then you agree that private citizens would be able to fire upon the protesters breaking into the Capitol on january 6th, in order to protect the Capitol?

And you would be O.K. with that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then you agree that private citizens would be able to fire upon the protesters breaking into the Capitol on january 6th, in order to protect the Capitol?

That's not at all what I said.
Try again.

 

[Rogue AI]

When he is acquitted...do you also believe he should run for Congress or the presidency because of this?

Not because of this. If he applied himself to public service and worked his way through the ranks proving he capable and qualified, maybe.

 

[meaner gene]

Yes. There's nothing in the law that says that a 17 year old member of the US militia walking the streets armed with adult fellow US militia members does not constitute a traditional course of instruction.

In fact, the law does not define what does and does not constitute a traditional course of instruction. Therefore it is extremely ambiguous.

Federal law, example OSHA under 29 CFR 1911 defines what a course of instruction requires. And just standing next to somebody fails on it's face.

 

[Faun]

Yes. There's nothing in the law that says that a 17 year old member of the U.S. militia walking the streets armed with adult fellow U.S. militia members does not constitute a traditional course of instruction.

In fact, the law does not define what does and does not constitute a traditional course of instruction. Therefore it is extremely ambiguous.

SCOTUS has already ruled that if a criminal law is ambiguous, the court must rule in favor of the defendant.

The entire case should be dismissed.

LOL

It's not ambiguous just because you say it is. A course of instruction requires instruction on handling a firearm.

Show evidence that occurred...

 

[meaner gene]

Then you agree that private citizens would be able to fire upon the protesters breaking into the Capitol on january 6th, in order to protect the Capitol?

And you would be O.K. with that?

That's not at all what I said.
Try again.

If a private citizen can arm himself to protect the private property of a stranger. You should surely defend the same of a private citizen doing the same to protect government property, which he has an actual stake in.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a private citizen can arm himself....

You asked:
What if someone went into Washington DC on January 6th, and started shooting protesters breaking into the Capitol.
I said:
As they were supposedly heavily armed, they'd shoot back.

When you have response relevant to what I said, let me know.

 

[Correll]

You make an interesting point.
What if someone went into Washington DC on January 6th, and started shooting protesters breaking into the Capitol.

Would you take the same position?

If the lefty militia type was standing there, in clear view, defending the building, in an attempt to deter any attack, and only using force once an attack is made, then yes.

If the lefty militia type was hidden in a blind, waiting for some excuse to open up, hoping for it, and not wanting to discourage it, then no.


It is worth noting, of course, that Rittenhouse was not even at the building when attacked and tried to run away, repeatedly.