Dumbfuck, the law allows an exception for those "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision."Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!
Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.
Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...
2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.
In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.
And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...
3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.
If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...
4. I think I am doing pretty well.
You think that because you're stupid.
Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.
I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.
The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.
Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...
1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.
2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.
4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.
Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...
As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.
That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.
That is the way cowards and predators work.
In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.
YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.
Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.
That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.
Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.
You are a loser and an asshole.
The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.
That is something you made up.
That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.
Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?
He was not in a course.
He was not properly handling the weapon.
He shot someone in the back.
He fired two rounds into the air.
He was not under adult supervision while in this imaginary "course" you hallucinate.
By no means does that section of the law apply to him. That's why only idiots like you would even attempt such a silly defense while his actual defense is going nowhere near the rabbit hole you're digging.
There is another clause after the "or" that you left out that was more general.
He was part of a group that was performing a function that in a healthy society the police do. THat is obviously educational for a young man that wants to be a cop.
Most of your points are wrong or irrelevant.