The jurors apparently felt the verifiable introduced evidence showed him merely carrying the firearm, until there is the confrontation. If there was evidence of him brandishing in a threatening fashion before, it wasn’t brought up very strongly.
Now, entirely separate from that is the perceived notion that this means if you are visibly armed, then it is up to any reasonable person not to interfere with you in ANY manner (because why else would you be interfering with me except to take my gun and kill me ). That is a whole separate can of worms.
I very much doubt he will continue nursing studies. He has a job offer from Matt Gaetz already. He’s the new darling of the right so I won’t be surprised to see him go in a political direction.
If they knew that they would be held accountable for that violence, then they may be less prone. Since they now know that they can kill demonstrators with a simple, “I was scared.” they will do so.
No matter what situation they have to put themselves into in order to justify fearing for their life, they will find a way.
So you agree this shows you can kill people on the streets under certain circumstances. Kinda defeats your previous claim hoping it shows you you can’t…
I’ll again note, hundreds of people in Kenosha that night were armed, and similar protests and counterprotests frequently feature large numbers of armed people. There are several right and left wing groups (including some all-black groups) that deliberately go to protests openly armed.
We’ve had this happen at hundreds and hundreds of protests across the country and involving many thousands of armed people. And we’ve had a small handful of shootings that I’m aware of, specifically that involve the protesters / counter protesters. I think the baseline view that someone walking around in an open carry state at a protest with a gun is even worthy of special attention, let alone someone you need to confront, is an incredibly flawed premise. I hope that people show better judgment than Rosenbaum did in the future.
These are both worthless nonsense posts so I figured I’d lump them together. There is literally no point for you people to keep questioning the existence of the fundamental legal principle of self-defense, which is all you’re doing with these posts. It’s been hashed out to incredible detail (and quite a few people have made high quality posts in all the dreck) over 1,100 posts in this thread. I find absolutely no reason to engage with people who seem to just keep harping on that same point.
In America you can defend yourself with lethal force in certain situations, this is a part of our common law and constitutional system, and is true in all fifty states. It is not my job to argue that basic factual reality with you, and if you don’t like it, it is not my job to fix it. But you simply continue to remain deliberately ignorant of this reality by repetitively making posts that refuse to accept this core factual reality.
I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea to just ban guns at protests, if it could be done constitutionally. It’s not that different from banning them from bars. Protests can be highly charged, with opposing groups feeling strongly in conflict. Violence of one kind or another can commonly break out. It’s even more dangerous with guns present.
Figuring out how to define the area or groups prohibited would be a big problem, though.
99% of the world realizes doing what KR did is very likely to result in you being killed. Anyone dumb enough to do it in the future isn’t going to be deterred by a guilty verdict.
Heller v. District of Columbia (2011) (“Heller II”)
Ezell v City of Chicago
United States v. Marzzarella
These are all second amendment cases, but all have specific opinions on self-defense that make it clear there is a fundamental right of self-defense. There are also older constitutional norms/ jurisprudence / common law, but suffice that these recent Supreme Court rulings are the most timely ones to today and make the issue quite clear.
The Supreme Court disagrees. On matters of law we can weigh your opinion vs that of the highest court in our country, and we will find one opinion far more meaningful.
). That is a whole separate can of worms.