1. Crossing State lines isn't a crime. Don't know why so many repeat this.
2. Only 1 of the 3 men he shot was unarmed. But again, being unarmed doesn't mean you aren't a danger.
3. Yes it's okay to shoot people who physically attack you. I don't understand why anyone will think it's not.
I know you probably don't know this coz you've not been paying attention to the facts:I think arming yourself and crossing State lines to attend a protest that you politically oppose, is not a sign that you come in peace.
He went there to shoot people and the rules allowed him to do so. And that is where the US has a problem.
One of them was armed. One of them hit him in the head with a skateboard. The other tried to grab his gun. I'm not surprised he was found not guilty.CNN being very balanced for a change.
Quoting various lawyers and politicians trying to use the verdict for political gain and breaking down their statements using the facts submitted in court.
When (or if) the emotions cool down I'd like to revisit this case with cool head.
I know you probably don't know this coz you've not been paying attention to the facts:
But your first sentence is worded incorrectly.
1. He crossed State lines, i.e Went from the town he lived in to the town he works in. I did this for years living in Jersey and working in New York. It's not unusual.
2 He armed himself AFTER crossing State lines. Not before. The way you wrote it is illegal. What he did, isn't. Big difference.
3. There is no evidence suggesting he opposes the protest. Frankly, the only evidence one way or the other, suggests he didn't. He agreed black lives matter and was willing to help anyone in need of medical... That's caught on Camera by the way. Prior to the shooting.
However, he was opposed to burning or looting the property or businesses of those who had nothing to do with the incident that started the protest/riot. No sane person should disagree with that.
4. Finally, he didn't go there to shoot people, but yes he knew that those who wanted to cause mayhem and burn other people's property would not take kindly to someone opposing their irrational acts. So he armed himself.
5. For the record, 1 of the guys ge shot had a gun, another smacked him with a Skateboard. The guy that was with the first attacker also had a gun and shot in the air while his friend was chasing the defendant. So, yes it made all the sense in the world to be armed. As lots of the rioters were.
The whole thing is a mess but this is the part i dont understand. He was always going to get off on the shootings, but what about him illegally having an assault rifle in a state he doesnt live in? No charges for that? The fact he travelled somewhere to get in a fight and that he had a rifle he isnt allowed to carry should not be incorporated in the murder/manslaughter charge.Sounds totally fucked up. Person goes into a different town armed with a semi-automatic rifle, shoots 3 people who were unarmed and it’s OK to do so?
The very fact that he was going equipped says it all. But, eh, that’s the rules in the US.
Was the rifle his?1. Crossing State lines isn't a crime. Don't know why so many repeat this.
2. Only 1 of the 3 men he shot was unarmed. But again, being unarmed doesn't mean you aren't a danger.
3. Yes it's okay to shoot people who physically attack you. I don't understand why anyone will think it's not.
He picked up the rifle from a friend's house in Kenosha. He didn't go across the state line with it. The guy who gave it to him has been charged with "intentionally giving a weapon to a minor".The whole thing is a mess but this is the part i dont understand. He was always going to get off on the shootings, but what about him illegally having an assault rifle in a state he doesnt live in? No charges for that? The fact he travelled somewhere to get in a fight and that he had a rifle he isnt allowed to carry should not be incorporated in the murder/manslaughter charge.
Now, hear there's a protest next week you dont like, well lets grab a rifle, go there, instigate some shit then shoot some people. yeehaw
One of them was armed. One of them hit him in the head with a skateboard. The other tried to grab his gun. I'm not surprised he was found not guilty.
I find it amusing his lawyer says now he's going to go to college and become a nurse. No, he's not. He's going to write a book, be on talk shows, be a hero to the right, run for office when he's older, etc. etc.
What the message is of course to those who want to buck up their perception of their own importance is to show up armed anywhere and just stand there. Just look intimidating. And if anyone so much as glances at you sideways, makes any kind of move you perceive to be offensive, whether they're armed or not, just shoot them. Several times.
Will you get away with it? Well, it depends if you're white
Dont you need a license for a gun? Isnt he breaking the law by knowingly having a weapon he doesnt have a license for or does he have a license and that covers all guns? Genuinely dont know..He picked up the rifle from a friend's house in Kenosha. He didn't go across the state line with it. The guy who gave it to him has been charged with "intentionally giving a weapon to a minor".
It helps if you're especially pasty-faced, don't look like a threat due to your doughboy physique, and cry like a little kid on the stand too.Will you get away with it? Well, it depends if you're white
Because the law says that if the gun is long-barreled enough, 16/17 year-olds are allowed to carry them (I assume it's effectively a hunting exception for sport guns, although I'm not sure why that law exists).Dont you need a license for a gun? Isnt he breaking the law by knowingly having a weapon he doesnt have a license for or does he have a license and that covers all guns? Genuinely dont know..
Thanks that explains it (do a degree). Common sense took a back seat. Easy for the judge to hide behind the law when its written so poorly.Because the law says that if the gun is long-barreled enough, 16/17 year-olds are allowed to carry them (I assume it's effectively a hunting exception for sport guns, although I'm not sure why that law exists).
Helpful if confusing story on the confusion: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...ial-dropped-gun-possession-charge/8640342002/
Insecure kid trying to buck up his self-perception of masculinity and find a place in the world to belong. I'm sure he didn't go there intending on harming anyone, but by carrying a gun he compensates for his own perceived weakness as a man and a person. Then suddenly he was put in a position to use it, in part, I'm sure, because his assailants thought he was too much of a pudgy runt to use it, and thus were emboldened by their own senseless hubris. We can argue if he hadn't been there none of this would have happened, but it's also fair to say that if everyone had just ignored the pathetic little piece of shit probably nothing would have happened either.Thanks that explains it (do a degree). Common sense took a back seat. Easy for him to hide behind the law when its written so poorly.
Not sure id ignore someone with a rifle in the middle of the street. Admittedly, i wouldn’t attack him with a skateboard. But hard to ignore.Insecure kid trying to buck up his self-perception of masculinity and find a place in the world to belong. I'm sure he didn't go there intending on harming anyone, but by carrying a gun he compensates for his own perceived weakness as a man and a person. Then suddenly he was put in a position to use it, in part, I'm sure, because his assailants thought he was too much of a pudgy runt to use it, and thus were emboldened by their own senseless hubris. We can argue if he hadn't been there none of this would have happened, but it's also fair to say that if everyone had just ignored the pathetic little piece of shit probably nothing would have happened either.
Could have said the same of the 2 men he killed and the 3rd he maimed. They too could have stayed at home and none of this would have happened. Frankly, had the first guy stayed home, none of this would have happened.With respect, you do not arm yourself and travel to the scene of a protest (or the other way round), for a cup of tea and a chat. You go there armed to cause trouble. If he had stayed at home then none of this would have happened.
Nice theory, but anyone under those same circumstance, with that much video evidence available, everyone would have gotten off. If you wanted a perfect case of self defense. This was almost as close as you can get.The system is geared to protect a group that has, from groups that have not. You can arm yourself, say you feel threatened and shoot someone dead. Well, unless you are from the group that have not, in which case the police will shoot you dead in a heartbeat.
Again, some capitol rioters are currently under prosecution and the Shaman was just sentenced to 4 years. And more will follow. So again your beliefs are not tracking the facts accurately.This is how the US is designed to work, and when it works against the group that have, as in the Capitol attack of Jan 6th, then it is of course an outrage. That is not how it is meant to work. The system is designed to protect ‘patriots’ - not shoot or imprison them.
You only need a license for a concealed weaponDont you need a license for a gun? Isnt he breaking the law by knowingly having a weapon he doesnt have a license for or does he have a license and that covers all guns? Genuinely dont know..
Kinda and yes.Was the rifle his?
Was he legally allowed to have the rifle?
These are genuine questions, not rhetorical.
Wow. Didnt know that. Mental.You only need a license for a concealed weapon
Well, what would you do? Let's say you're protesting peacefully. You either just go on protesting, secure in the knowledge that the only reason he or any other non-law-enforcement types are carrying guns is that their insecurity and cowardice are all the way on the right side of the bell curve, or you move away out of his line of fire, or sight, which is want he wants because he wants to feel the power of creating fear, since he couldn't otherwise create fear in any other human or in any context without the gun. Either way you don't get shot. You certainly don't accost him.Not sure id ignore someone with a rifle in the middle of the street. Admittedly, i wouldn’t attack him with a skateboard. But hard to ignore.
im not weighing in on the murder calls, thats kind of covered with t( stand your ground type laws, but i cant believe he gets away scott free from a situation he instigated and caused a death.
he turned up in the middle of a volatile situation holding a rifle.
I really dont know.Well, what would you do? Let's say you're protesting peacefully. You either just go on protesting, secure in the knowledge that the only reason he or any other non-law-enforcement types are carrying guns is that their insecurity and cowardice are all the way on the right side of the bell curve, or you move away out of his line of fire, or sight, which is want he wants because he wants to feel the power of creating fear, since he couldn't otherwise create fear in any other human or in any context without the gun.