Perhaps it's the fact that in the USA you are permitted to 'defend yourself' with illegally held semi automatic weapons. Or maybe that unofficial militia groups can be called upon to counter demonstrations against a police shooting. I don't know. You decide.How is self-defense insane, out of interest?
The charges would not have been the same, he would have been convicted just for the weapon and would have had extreme difficulty with the defence issue, though it would undoubtedly have taken far longer to go through the courts. No way he would get off 'scott free' I think the term is in English.Would a French court have come up with the same insane judgement on the Kyle Rittenhouse case that the idiots in Wisconsin did?
You seem to be some kind of apologist for the outrageous gun laws in certain US states.I think he possibly made a bad judgement call - going on the streets during a full blown riot.
However, he was apparently carrying a legally held firearm, it was slinged around his neck and then from the videos that I have seen - he was viciously attacked by rioters.
Had his gun not been on a sling - the rioters were trying and may have succeeded in taking it off him (and possibly shooting him with his own gun).
When attacked, he shot the attackers to defend himself - so I am very happy with the verdict.
The rioters reaped what they sowed!
You seem to think you know me!You seem to be some kind of apologist for the outrageous gun laws in certain US states.
Thankfully it is nothing like that!It was just a guess Mr. Solar.....but everything and everyone in their rightful place. No dissent, no demonstrations, no semi-automatic weapons...Shariah law. Not for me but each to their own.
I have to wonder why you chose to comment here in the first place and what kind of reaction you thought you might get here. After all your comments are very provocative did you not expect such responses? That would be a bit hard to believe.Thankfully it is nothing like that!
I am happy for people to challenge my opinions on the case that we are discussing - but I will not accept personal attacks on me or the place that I choose to currently live and work!
I chose to comment on the case in question - rather than the original rhetorical, hypothetical question asked in the original post.I have to wonder why you chose to comment here in the first place and what kind of reaction you thought you might get here. After all your comments are very provocative did you not expect such responses? That would be a bit hard to believe.
The legal point was that the Prosecution had to prove - beyond all reasonable doubt - that he was not acting in self-defence.However - within the context of these crazy laws - I still believe the verdict was correct.