Contradicted by the verdict, and by the fundamentals of American law.
You have been willfully, consistently wrong on just about everything you have said about this situation.
Thanks, at least I’m consistent.
So, you back Joe Horn?
What do you mean by not being able to fire over a road?
I’m hoping that this was due to a medical incident, and was not a deliberate act, whether related to The Verdict or not.
Because as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, this “text book” would require that someone else commit an illegal act that places a reasonable person in your shoes in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.
How exactly do I bait someone into doing such a thing? All are safe from the fear of this non-existent “text book” play by simply not attempting to feloniously attack someone else.
I reject the idea that I must cede the public areas of a city to those who would harm me, and if I don’t, then I should be beaten to death. This fear of armed people “taking over” the streets is absurd. Rittenhouse did not stop one single person from protesting. He didn’t attempt to stop people from committing arson or other property damage. Only when he was personally attacked did he respond. The idea that he “shouldn’t have been there” is outrageous in a free society. He had as much right to be there as anyone else who was there.
Coming from the mindset that says the Second Amendment was written to justify overthrowing the duly-elected American government in the event it does something that a vocal but uninformed minority doesn’t like, your “fundamentals of American law” does not bear close scrutiny.
Exactly. And I have a hard time believing that the same ideological contingent that is so in favor of a Heckler’s Veto to deplatform those they oppose don’t see the similarities in the mob right’s argument of it being a provocation to live a normal life where a politically motivated riot is taken place.
That’s why it’s clear that there is a huge political component to what is and what is not charged in this country and that this selective prosecution is deliberate in an attempt to in essence be a de-facto partisan test of who is allowed liberty and who is not.
Isn’t it the law everywhere (or nearly so) that forbids firing a weapon over or upon a public road?
Unless said gun-toting neighbor is out hunting for rabid red foxes, of course. Then it’s just fine.
Not in self defense it doesn’t.
This post is disingenuous. Explaining how the law ACTUALLY works in not “backing” anyone.
The thing is, too many people think they can argue that the law is right, just, and proper simply because it IS the law, and therefore should never be changed.
What this whole Rittenhouse charade (among others) shows is that the law needs some serious re-thinking.
One problem here is that the Reddest of the Red states are doing exactly that – but exactly backwards. They are passing laws making guns MORE accessible, MORE prevalant, MORE openly carriable, with LESS training requirements, and LESS stringent (if any) permitting requirements. These laws are making those jurisdictions steadily MORE unstable and MORE dangerous.
I don’t know if this was snark or intended to be taken literally; but in an eighteenth-century America where ever able-bodied man was expected to be either an active or reserve militiaman, no one proposed that the duly-elected American government should be overthrowable by a “vocal but uninformed minority”. The presumption was that if nearly everyone was armed, a supermajority would not suffer to allow either insurrection, lawlessness OR a tyrannical government. The Framers did not envision a populace of pacifist hoplophobes who would cower in fear from a militant minority and pray for the government to rescue them.
News to me; at least I couldn’t find anything like that in Minnesota’s statutes. Closest I could find was laws about vandalizing road signs and hunting from vehicles. Can anyone else chime in on this?
Google search for the words “law on firing onto or upon public roads” immediately turned up hits for at least several states, including Minnesota:
97B.001 Using firearms and taking in certain areas.
(a) Unless otherwise provided by law, a person may not discharge a firearm within 500 feet of a building occupied by a human or livestock without the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee:
(1) on another person’s private land, if the land is not a licensed shooting preserve; or
(2) on a public road right-of-way.
To be sure, this seems to apply only to firing from on a public road within 500 feet of a building occupied by human or livestock. But I am immediately seeing laws from many other states along these lines:
Florida law 790.15:
Ah, the reason I didn’t find it is because the 97B code is all related to hunting. 97B.001 is about trespass and hunting illegally close to private property or occupied areas. That and various laws about public discharge of firearms allow self-defense as an affirmative defense.
There are two law arguments being had. What the more vocal are arguing right now is about self defense itself. They are tending to bring in things that are not and can not be part of the law. “He crossed state lines. He shouldn’t be there.” I will argue there is nothing wrong with the law. It does give a large amount of power to jurors but that’s the basis for all of our legal process. It’s not perfect but it’s better than any other choice.
You are talking about open carry being an issue. I agree. I would love it if there was no open carry. It was inevitable that something would go wrong at one of these protests in an open carry state. The truth is there were many protests over the last year or so where both sides were armed. It didn’t happen until this incident
You’re right. These people – white Christian people – should be able to live a normal life that is their God-given right, without Those People protesting their systemic mistreatment by the police. I mean, just because they were born here does not mean they are entitled to equal treatment under the law? Hell, they should be happy to not be forced to pick cotton! And what gives them the right to protest just because they are abused and murdered without provocation? And if a few white supremacists should infiltrate their protests, burn down buildings, smash windows and loot, well, then that’s the protestors’ fault, isn’t it?
I just noticed this pic. Who was his buddy-in-arms in this photo? Were they there together? Did he do any shooting or any getting shot at? Did anybody else try to take his gun too? I don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about this. (Sorry, looks like you have to actually click on this link to see the full size picture.)
I have no idea what your diatribe has to do with my post.
I laughed at the headline. The verdict portends a violent future? WTH is rioting for days and doing $52 million dollars of damage? If there’s any signal it’s to stop wanton destruction that goes on for days.