So, let me get this straight... a teenager gets his friend to buy him an assault rifle because he can't legally buy it. No license or permit to owns the assault rifle, nor any gun safety training. He then says he is going to help protect a business from rioters, but instead he runs up and down streets carrying the assault rifle. Which he uses to shoot three people, killing two.
They're gonna get him for: Possession Curfew Possibly reckless endangerment And whatever federal gun charges are leftover He's not going to be convicted for anything that happened to Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz.
The Rittenhouse case is such an important barometer for our country to truly understand if it's just blowing smoke, or if the right is truly willing to sanction violence for a political purpose. Commodores post does not give me warm fuzzies about where we are going as a country.
Since when is religion something that is discussed in court? By a judge no less. How is that professional?
Why don't you go back to posting tweets saying the Libs are actually aliens from Omega 454. I mean, heck, if twitter is now gospel for the truth, why are you even here?
This is correct. It's also probably legal self-defense based on what I've been seeing, reading, and hearing (NY Times podcast). Sorry, but this is the first time I'm diving into this. He definitely broke some laws as other posters have pointed out, but I'd be surprised if the murder charges stick. We're moving towards a fully armed society folks, maybe like Brazil or South Africa. Be very aware of stand-your-ground rules, obligation to run, and other things like proportional force. Pro-gun, anti-gun, whatever - they will only grow and eventually be ubiquitous once SCOTUS overturns the NY permit law. There's way too many idiots with guns (illegal and legal), so no matter your position, we need to increase the education.
I don’t understand how this can possibly be construed as murder. I think people are allowing their political leanings to bias their perception of what happened here. Seems pretty clear that he fired his weapon in self-defense. Maybe I’m missing something.
Help me understand what or who was he defending his life against? He killed two people and shot a third? He was heavily armed.
The two people he killed were chasing after him and attacking him. He had reason to believe his life was in danger in both cases, didn’t he? Does that count as even manslaughter?
...I remember a judge bringing up some bible references during a highly publicized trial where a police officer shot and killed a man in his own apartment, under the guise of the officer somehow being not quite sure that they weren't in the wrong apartment in the first place... ...(I'll leave out the fact that the officer was white and female...and that the victim was black and male...and that the presiding judge was black and female... ...wouldn't want anybody to get the wrong idea or anything)...
After he intruded upon them with a deadly weapon that he wasn't legally entitled to be carrying there
Youre gonna have a rough time claiming he wasn't allowed to be where he was, or that his open possession of a weapon (or inability to be carrying it, etc) is going to be material to the shooting.
