There is, of course, a middle ground: people who don’t “freak out” when we see someone open carry, but do get a tad uneasy and keep a sharp eye on that person. There are a lot of weird people out there, and some of them are armed. I’m saying this as someone who spent nearly her entire adult life in open carry states where the overwhelming majority of residents were responsible gun owners who very seldom open-carried in town.
I think most people agree that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense but that he was a foolish kid who was completely unequipped to handle the situation and shouldn’t have been there. If he hadn’t gone, two people would still be alive, a third would have an intact arm, and Rittenhouse would not have been crying and vomiting at the police station. Don’t we all really wish people would stop appointing themselves riot control officers and would stay the f-ck home?
Yes, but again the open carry laws in WI were not part of the Defense. So, no “stupid laws” lead to his acquittal.
And like I said, can we NOT debate open carry laws here- it will lead to a massive hijack.
That case has nothing whatsoever to do with self defense. The man was convicted as he was NOT shooting in self defense. This case has absolutely no bearing.
quibble: despite the hat…i was unable to locate anyone with his name with a valid or inactive for any reason paramedic license in WI medical license lookup. Granted, not illegal to lie about being a medic, but this sounds more like offsetting penalties… Many of not most people wandering around protests calling themselves “medics” have no meaningful medical training at all.
Right. And I’m impressed that you looked that up! Impersonating an EMT is a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.
946.70
(d) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever impersonates an emergency medical responder, as defined in s. 256.01 (4p), with intent to mislead others into believing that the person is actually an emergency medical responder is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
And he didn’t just wear the hat and tell people he was a medic; he actually said he was an EMT.
He wasn’t old enough to be a certified E.M.T., yet he shouted, “I am an E.M.T.!,” and proclaimed, “If you are injured, come to me! ”
The prosecutor had him testify about his experience working for a private ambulance company in Milwaukee as an EMT and paramedic. It was not disputed by the defense. Maybe they missed something and let him lie on the stand but I doubt it.
The Mayor of Chicago stated yeaterday that it is the merchants who are to blame for the lootings and burnings for “failure to provide adequate security.” Thing is, the Chicago PD will not enter into South Chicago after 5:00 PM. In a kind of warped sequence of reasoning, she’s right.
So you’re saying the police are refusing to do their jobs? That sounds bad of them. How should the Mayor punish them for this? Also, WTF does this have to do with Rittenhouse?
It appears to relate to this quote from Lightfoot from December 6:
The right-wing media have seized upon this and spun it into “it is the merchants who are to blame for the lootings and burnings” because they are still trying to deflect from their and their pet politicians’ support for violent insurrection, including assaults on any police who get in their way.
I tried to find a liberal source, but it is kiind of hard to find any paper defending Her Honor’s comments.Here’s one from 12/9. Six days ago. My profuse apologies for the misinformation. I only heard about it the day before posting. No oiffense intended.
On of the considerations the press is paying no attention to but certainly not lost on the people of Chicago is that the crime has been consistently spreading out from South Chicago. The Mayor’s comments were aimed merchant of what is called the Magnificent Mile, a retail strip that runs basically from the river along the north shore. The mayor’s comments, no surprise, “Not our fault.” Those high end stores have started to close the doors.
To continue the hijack (why not, the Rittenhouse trial is over and done) here in Minneapolis there was an ordinance forbidding businesses from installing security grates or shutters over their windows, because it was considered to “cause visual blight” and create the impression that an area is “unsafe” and “troublesome". After much criticism, this was finally lifted back in March, especially after critics pointedly asked what it said about Minneapolis that it needed such an ordinance.