Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The crowd was committing a crime. So their shooting back would not be self defense. And the citizen going into washington to protect the capitol would be free to take out those in the crowd both breaking into the building, and those shooting back.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.
Actually let's stick to a "real" situation. Citizens watching the attack on the Capitol on January 6th on TV, came to the defense of the Capitol, by bringing arms, and shooting protesters they see breaking into the building, or protesters attacking capitol police officers.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.
So you agree: they would shoot back.The crowd was committing a crime.
As only some of the corwd was comitting a crime, this is not at all necessarily true.So their shooting back would not be self defense.
Kyle is not being charged with an OSHA violation, you fucking dumbass anti-civil rights authoritarian moron.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.
Correction:
Some of the crowd was committing a crime.
As only some of the corwd was comitting a crime, this is not at all necessarily true.
Your hypothetical fantasies are not 'real'. The topic at hand is. All this deflection just proves how out of your depth you are.Actually let's stick to a "real" situation. Citizens watching the attack on the Capitol on January 6th on TV, came to the defense of the Capitol, by bringing arms, and shooting protesters they see breaking into the building, or protesters attacking capitol police officers.
Would you be O.K. with that?
You claimed that Kyle had been given instruction, and said the definition was ambiguous. Well federal code defines instruction, and your example comes nowhere close to meeting any government definition of instruction.Kyle is not being charged with an OSHA violation, you fucking dumbass anti-civil rights authoritarian moron.
And so, you agree:As you admit some in the crowd were committing crimes....
The evidence is on video. He is clearly obeying the instructions of an adult. And that's besides the point. The state must prove that traditional instruction never occurred. They have to prove a negative.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...
Actually let's stick to a "real" situation. Citizens watching the attack on the Capitol on January 6th on TV, came to the defense of the Capitol, by bringing arms, and shooting protesters they see breaking into the building, or protesters attacking capitol police officers.
Would you be O.K. with that?
Your hypothetical fantasies are not 'real'. The topic at hand is. All this deflection just proves how out of your depth you are.
It's your fantasy, as the event actually happened, and none of what you are saying did.My example is the most probable case of armed citizens coming to the defense of the Capitol. They watched the Capitol being broken into in real time on TV. And it would be reasonable for them to take it upon themselves to come to the defense of their Capitol.
The 2nd amendment isn't just to oppose the government, but to also protect it.
What do think would happen, had these supposed armed citizen-defenders of the government opened fire into the crowd of 30,000 heavily armed protestors, the overhwelming majority of who were committing no crime?My example is the most probable case of armed citizens coming to the defense of the Capitol. They watched the Capitol being broken into in real time on TV. And it would be reasonable for them to take it upon themselves to come to the defense of their Capitol.
But, you are a joke, so there.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 resignationwww.independent.co.uk
Actually both as a matter of logic, and as a matter of law, the defense has to prove the elements an affirmative defense against the prosecutions documentary case. They have photos of Kyle in possession.The evidence is on video. He is clearly obeying the instructions of an adult. And that's besides the point. The state must prove that traditional instruction never occurred. They have to prove a negative.
Sure, if they reasonably believed that someone's life was in danger and deadly force was necessary to stop it.Actually let's stick to a "real" situation. Citizens watching the attack on the Capitol on January 6th on TV, came to the defense of the Capitol, by bringing arms, and shooting protesters they see breaking into the building, or protesters attacking capitol police officers.
Would you be O.K. with that?
Again, if they reasonably believed that someone's life is in imminent danger and deadly force is necessary to prevent it, then yes.As you admit some in the crowd were committing crimes, then you would agree it proper to use deadly force to stop them from committing crimes that put people in danger of life or limb.
WOW. Had a police officer told Kyle to put his hands up. You would claim he was obeying the instructions of an adult? And that would qualify his possession of the weapon?The evidence is on video. He is clearly obeying the instructions of an adult. And that's besides the point.
Yes -- they have to show Kyle had a reasonable faear for his life.Actually both as a matter of logic, and as a matter of law, the defense has to prove the elements an affirmative defense against the prosecutions documentary case.
Yes, if said private citizen was reasonable in believing that such deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. .....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.
The fact that he is actually running for his life pretty much negates the need for stand your ground, which Wisconsin does not have. He was attempting to retreat.Yes -- they have to show Kyle had a reasonable faear for his life.
They have ample video to this effect.
