Is this an apples to apples comparison??
- Thread starter AP3.0
- Start date
You are allowed to defend yourself. You are not allowed based on their laws to buy a gun for a minor, drive said weapon across state lines. You can’t defend a business thats not yours. You can’t use stand your ground when he didn’t have any business there, nor use the stand your ground defense to justify any of his actions.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
All but 4 countries have age of consent at 16 or lower. So ya they're different countries, but it's an overwhelming trend across the continent. I'm not saying America isn't fucked up too. I'm just saying I don't put Europe on a pedestal.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
He didn't buy a gun for a minor. He was a minor. He didn't bring a gun across state lines. You can defend a business that isn't yours. That's also not what led to the shooting. You can be wherever you want to be. If a Black Democrat goes to protest at a Trump rally, and the MAGA supporters decide to attack him for it you think he doesn't have the right to defend himself? Because it being a Trump rally, he didn't have any business there if he doesn't like Trump?
Man, just stop saying stand your ground. It's frustrating how you still dont know how to use it. There wasn't a "stand your ground" defense for him. It's not a law in the state and he ran rom his attackers anyway. So he met the requirement of the states that don't have a stand your ground law.
Stand your ground is not relevant to his case at all.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
America is fucked up too.
Englishdude
OG
End of day, whole worlds fucked up.
People can pick and chose what they stand on but if it doesn’t align with the current argument it will be skipped over or dismissed with changing of goalposts.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
Are you sure all that is true?
You can defend another person's property with deadly force in a state like TX because they specifically have a law allowing that. Does Wisconsin have such a law?
So how did his minor ass end up with a gun? Even if he didn’t bring a gun across state lines (which he did)?
He showed up under the guise of “protecting property” was acting up and when people confronted him that was the excuse he needed for “self defense”.
You’re applying the logic of stand your ground for a state that doesn’t have it. So none of your argument applies to him. He did some bullshit and they decided to protect him. THATS IT.
NO. You are only allowed to protect your property (house, vehicle, business etc) in Wisconsin
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
I'm saying in general you're allowed to defend a store that isn't yours. I'm not saying you can shoot a person to stop a store break-in. But it's not super relevant here because that's not why the shooting happened. Rittenhouse was walking, a guy that didn't like him ran at him, Rittenhouse ran away, guy chased him, he gained on him, Rittenhouse turned, guy reached for his gun, Rittenhouse shot him.
I'm not dwelling on the store protection much because he didn't shoot him to protect a store.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
An adult living in Wisconsin bought the gun, and kept it at his house... in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse got the gun from him...in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse didn't bring the gun from another state to WI.
@The Lonious Monk @Dwayne @Inori @AP3.0 ... hell anybody that can get through to him. My words aren't clear enough. Can one of you please explain the "Stand your ground" stuff to him? I don't think I can explain it any better than I have. Regardless of where you stand on the Rittenhouse stuff. Just explain stand your ground to him.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
I maintain that bringing guns to a protest is menacing. Those people weren't out there to destroy that store, so the idea that Rittenhouse or anyone else had to go there with guns antagonizing protesters is absurd.
As for stand your ground, I don't think it's relevant here. Wisconsin isn't a stand your ground state, but if it was then depending what law it is, Rittenhouse would have been justified. In some of those real lenient states, it basically just means that if someone is antagonizing you, you don't have to be the bigger person, you can take what action you deem is necessary. Standard self defense is a little different. In that case, you have to use force comparable to what you perceive the threat to be. If his attackers felt threatened by him and were just trying to get to him and take his gun for their own safety, he doesn't really get the right to shoot them for that.
The people that covered for him said so?
There is no stand your ground in the state of Wisconsin. That doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself. You’re trying to plat tomato tomatoe word semantics to the “argument”
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
The guy that bought it testified to it in court. It doesn't matter anyway. The gun was legal for him to possess in WI. You're going on about irrelevant stuff.
Stop using stand your ground then. You even made it a point to say WI doesn't have a stand your ground law.
Of course he’d say that.
Self defense; if I’m walking down the street and someone stabs me and I take the knife and beat his ass>self defense. Crossing state lines with a weapon bought for you, antagonizing people then when people react you shoot them then claim self defense could probably get you off with stand your ground in Florida. There is no law in Wisconsin that protects you in that aspect so you are arguing a moot point. The issue is the system decided to protect Rittenhouse.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
I'm only defending Rittenhouse's actions from a legal standpoint. I'm not saying he SHOULD have been out there, or that he didn't go into a situation knowing his presence would likely not be welcomed.
I'm just saying what he didn't wasn't criminal.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
Ohhh you're saying he was wrong in the fantasy situation you made up in your head. My fault. I misunderstood.
mike030270
Memes
Gun jammed 3 times... something was looking out for him
