Prosecution Knows It Has Lost, Now Trying To Add Lesser Charges To Avoid Total Loss

[M14 Shooter]

On a positive note for the pro-gun side, kids can now walk the street with their AR-15's!

No, not true and the rest of your post is just as dishonest and irrelevant. '

 

[Donald H]

I don't know what your source is since you seem to have broken the rules by quoting without attribution but, whoever it is, they're as ignorant of the case as are you. McGinnis was not shot and not killed and not involved other than having been a witness who saw what happened in some of the night, recorded what he saw, and testified in the trial. Self-defense has nothing to do with McGinnis because McGinnis wasn't involved.

link at post #482.

 

[tahuyaman]

Don't hold out any hope in that. I see it as the judge's parting shot that will cause emotions to soar when the sentence is a slap on the wrist.

On a positive note for the pro-gun side, kids can now walk the street with their AR-15's!

I hold no hope either way. I’m just concerned with the facts and applying the law in an honest manner.

 

[tahuyaman]

…On a positive note for the pro-gun side, kids can now walk the street with their AR-15's!

Whatever happens here, it doesn’t change the fact that the US Supreme Court has been pretty clear in several rulings that juveniles do not possess the same 2d amendment rights as adults.

 

[Donald H]

Whatever happens here, it doesn’t change the fact that the US Supreme Court has been pretty clear in several rulings that juveniles do not possess the same 2d amendment rights as adults.

Thanks for that information. Do you think that could form the basis of an appeal to the Scotus?
I think it's just going to be irrelevant to the final verdict.

The impact to Kyle is of small importance in comparison to the left's reaction. I see that judge setting up a provocation that will result in the equivalent of Mississippi burning!

The stage was set (built) but was torn down when Chauvin was convicted. Stay safe.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whatever happens here, it doesn’t change the fact that the US Supreme Court has been pretty clear in several rulings that juveniles do not possess the same 2d amendment rights as adults.

Which is completely irrelevant to this case.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So you confess, then, that you're OK with judicial tyranny and political trials. Please do not pretend to be a conservative or libertarian.

I’m fine with our court system as it is.

Not my problem if you consider it “judicial tyranny”. Go write them a letter and let me know how that works out.

 

[iceberg]

and now the prosecution, in closing, said rittenhouse lost the right to self defense when he brought a gun.

this is just fucking stupid beyond any measure.

 

[Donald H]

and now the prosecution, in closing, said rittenhouse lost the right to self defense when he brought a gun.

this is just fucking stupid beyond any measure.

It only seems to be stupid but you'll see the logic soon.
The Klan's presence would have been felt in that courtroom.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Klan's presence would have been felt in that courtroom.

No, not true and the rest of your post is just as dishonest and irrelevant. '

 

[tahuyaman]

Which is completely irrelevant to this case.

It is relevant in that Rittenhouse was a juvenile when this happened.

 

[tahuyaman]

and now the prosecution, in closing, said rittenhouse lost the right to self defense when he brought a gun.

this is just fucking stupid beyond any measure.

Why is that "stupid beyond any measure?" See if you can explain that without name calling and profane insults. Try an explanation using substance

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is relevant in that Rittenhouse was a juvenile when this happened.

As the weapons charge has been dropped, -that- is no long relevant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is that "stupid beyond any measure?"

You have the right to self defnse. You have the righ to self-defense with a firearm.
The prosecutor argues that if, you bring a firearm, you do not have the right to self-defense.
Absurd on its face.

 

[tahuyaman]

You have the right to self defnse. You have the righ to self-defense with a firearm.
The prosecutor argues that if, you bring a firearm, you do not have the right to self-defense.
Absurd on its face.

You do not have the right to self defense if you provoke an confrontation. That is what the law states.

 

[tahuyaman]

As the weapons charge has been dropped, -that- is no long relevant.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment doesn't matter?


Interesting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You do not have the right to self defense if you provoke an confrontation.

Legally carrying a gun is not, in and of itself, provocation.
Thus, there's no rational basis for what the ADA said.

 

[tahuyaman]

Legally carrying a gun is not, in and of itself, provocation.
Thus, there's no rational basis for what the ADA said.

I would argue that carrying a rifle into a violent riot and engaging others is provocative act. Most reasonable people would agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment doesn't matter?

As the weapons charge has been dropped, the fact Rittemhouse was a minor at the time is no longer relevant.
As this is the case, the holdings of the USSC with respect to the rights of minors does not come ito play.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would argue that carrying a rifle into a violent riot and engaging others is provocative act.

And so, you agree:
Legally carrying a gun is not, in and of itself, provocation.
Thus, there's no rational basis for what the ADA said.

As for what YOU said:
Rittenhouse only engaged those who threatened him.
Thus, his possession of a firearm, even by your standard, was not provocation.