bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,166
- 47,312
- 2,180
Crimes like jaywalking? Failing to make a full stop at a stop sign? I don't think they meant that you weren't entitled to defend yourself if you committed a misdemeanor. They meant if you used the gun in the commission of a crime, like armed robbery.Yes, the law in Wisconsin does say people are not protected by self defense laws if they themselves are in the commission of a crime. It also says the level of force that constitutes self defense is only up to the point of preventing or stopping the threat. It doesn't permit continued force against the attacker after that threat has been neutralized.But the law hasn't said that, just some overzealous prosecutor who threw a bunch of charges against the wall hoping something sticks.No, idiot. I'm concerned with upholding the law. People can't just kill others and claim it's self defense when the law says it's not self defense. WTF is wrong with you?LOLOLOLLiar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.
He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.
Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.
You are vile beyond measure.
See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.
All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.
We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.
1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.
2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.
Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.
And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.
You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.
Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.
You are a vile person.
And if you're so concerned with upholding the law, how come you don't care about things like rioting, felony assault, arson, and all the shit these guys were doing when they got shot?
You aren't fooling anyone..... you want this kid to fry because he prevailed, and the professional losers you support did what they always do, and lost.
That's it; that simple.
What a fucking moron.