When did this become acceptable?

[sqlbullet]

There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault.  That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.

[Mike D]

There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault.  That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.

I'd say for a 17 year old kid, Rittenhouse handled the situation very well given the circumstances.

I sure don't claim to know all of the facts. It will come out if there is a trail though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Geeman]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd amendment"

Is not allowing open carry an infringement on "bear arms"?   I say yes.

Marbury v Madison states "that a law repugnant to the constitution is void."  Marbury is the 800 lb gorilla in constitutional law.

LEOs don't like open carry because there are too many Karens out there calling 911.  Just be careful.  See "deprivation of rights under color of law" 18 U.S. Code §?242 and conspiring to violate rights 18 U.S. Code §?242

Any questions where I stand?

Greg

[Lyle_Savant]

Yes, just because you can doesn't mean you should, I personally feel like it gives all of us 2A Supporters a black eye.

[Mike D]

Yes, just because you can doesn't mean you should, I personally feel like it gives all of us 2A Supporters a black eye.

Why? It's a tool just like any other tool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Rick R]

When I was asked about open carry while teaching CCW safety classes I'd point out that it was equally legal for my hairy portly person to stroll around on a beach or main street wearing flip flops, a fishnet t-shirt and Speedo banana hammock.  Most ladies in class seemed to think neither was appropriate, but most agreed that there is a time and place. (For a Speedo) 

Similar to the legendary Rooftop Koreans concealed carry wasn't necessarily appropriate in the Rittenhouse case.  Rittenhouse & Co. were there to allegedly protect property and underestimated the scope of the riots.  Just as several rioters underestimated Rittenhouse. 

[terdog]

Lastly, I would like to complement the people who have been involved in this conversation for their civility. It is admirable and speaks well of this community.

It used to be that such conversations could occur in many online sites. No more, of course. Discussion is just not possible when everyone believes there are those who agree with them on everything and those who are dead wrong. With no contemplation and evaluation it all just becomes yelling at one another. The fact that that is not the case here is both exceptional and rewarding.

I too am grateful that this forum has been completely civil and respectful to each other. This is how we should ALL be to each other no matter where. Unfortunately, it seems that civil discourse in America has been hard to find.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

[Kenk]

And unfortunately, will likely become worse

[sqlbullet]

There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault.  That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.

I'd say for a 17 year old kid, Rittenhouse handled the situation very well given the circumstances.

I sure don't claim to know all of the facts. It will come out if there is a trail though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I too lack all the facts.  But I seriously question the decision to travel across state lines to defend the property of strangers. 

There were riots much closer to our home than the 23 miles it is from Antioch to Kenosha.  My home certainly has the firepower here to have made an impact.  But rather than travel to the violence, we loaded up, reviewed our home defense plan and settled in for the night.

[Kenk]

Smart guy 😊

[Mike D]

There is no one involved in the Rittenhouse situation that is without serious fault.  That makes is a great edge case to get terrible law from.

I'd say for a 17 year old kid, Rittenhouse handled the situation very well given the circumstances.

I sure don't claim to know all of the facts. It will come out if there is a trail though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I too lack all the facts.  But I seriously question the decision to travel across state lines to defend the property of strangers. 

There were riots much closer to our home than the 23 miles it is from Antioch to Kenosha.  My home certainly has the firepower here to have made an impact.  But rather than travel to the violence, we loaded up, reviewed our home defense plan and settled in for the night.

He was already I Kenosha. He did not cross state lines to defend anyone. The gun also did not cross state lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sqlbullet]

I didn't say he did cross state lines with a gun.

I said he traveled "across state lines to defend the property of strangers".

He was a resident of Antioch, and was in Kenosha, so at some point he traveled across a state line.  I found multiple sources that said he went to Kenosha on the 25th, but do acknowledge they don't say where he traveled to Kenosha from.  It may have been from Milwaukee, but it seems likely he went there from his home.

Mr. Rittenhouse said in a news video interview:

"People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people,  If there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself, but I also have my med kit."

He admits here he has a rifle, which is illegal for a 17 year old in Wisconsin.  Wisconsin only allows possession of a rifle by a minor for hunting purposes and with the consent of a legal guardian.  Open carry is legal in Wisconsin, but not for minors.

Mr. Rittenhouse was already in commission of two misdemeanors before the shootings began.

I don't doubt that Rittenhouse very much feared for his life, and reasonably so, when he fired his gun.  Unless some extraordinary facts present, I would agree that he should be acquitted of the homicide charges.

But he should not have been armed, and if he didn't feel safe without being armed, he should have left.  That was the serious fault in his judgement.

[Kenk]

Absolutely agree

[Patriot]

I saw a few attorneys with youtube channels say that Rittenhouse wasn't technically committing a crime if he had stayed on the property he was "protecting." The business belonged to a family friend. It is not illegal for a minor to possess a weapon on private property. However, when he took that weapon out into the street to put out the dumpster fire with the fire extinguisher was where the law was actually broken.