The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 16, 2020, 02:27 PM   #51
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 5,202
In general I agree with you rebs . My concern about this whole thing now is what his statement to the detective was and if he was advised of his rights at the time which I have to assume he was . My hope is that his statement was simply , I feared for my life and I want to cooperate but I feel I need a lawyer present and I respectfully have nothing further to say at this time .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; September 16, 2020 at 02:38 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old September 17, 2020, 09:54 PM   #52
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,457
Regarding whether it was legal for Rittenhouse to possess or carry a rifle in WI, the statute that appears to prohibit this, upon closer inspection, appears to apply only in the case of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun. Dean Weingarten makes a pretty cogent argument here: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2020/09...re-people.html
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

Last edited by Gary L. Griffiths; Yesterday at 12:13 AM.
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old September 17, 2020, 10:00 PM   #53
Blue Duck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2006
Posts: 371
I think the kid showed some poor judgement by being there to start with. But once he became targeted by the mob, what choice did he have? He didn't do nothing I wouldn't have done at that point. As far as I am concerned the rioters escalated the situation, and he was justified in shooting in self defense.
Blue Duck is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:28 AM   #54
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,654
Quote:
I did a lot of really stupid, and in hindsight embarrassingly idiotic, things when I was 17. Fortunately none of them were as stupid as murdering people on the street because I didn't agree with them.
Who "murdered" anybody? I saw 3 shootings in self defense .... what? should the kid just let them beat im to death, with anything handy? Skateboard? His own gun? Hands/Feet? .... He took the best of bad options, and was more restrained than I would have been.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by Tom Servo; Yesterday at 02:52 AM. Reason: Removed personal attack
jimbob86 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:57 AM   #55
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L. Griffeths
Regarding whether it was legal for Rittenhouse to possess or carry a rifle in WI, the statute that appears to prohibit this, upon closer inspection, appears to apply only in the case of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun. Dean Weingarten makes a pretty cogent argument here: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2020/09...re-people.html
What a novel idea -- read the law before acting on it or pontificating about it.

A few decades ago there was a perfect example of this in my state. Not firearms related, but it illustrates the point well, IMHO.

Seems there was a woman -- an executive for a large corporation in the state's capitol city -- who had fun going to parties to be the resident fortune teller/psychic. She used a pseudonym for these gigs, and she never advertised -- it was all word of mouth.

Back then, the state had an anti-fortunetelling law on the books. It had been there for 80 years and, in 80 years, nobody had ever been convicted under it. Nobody, in fact, could even remember if/when anyone had ever been arrested under it. Until one fine day when the police department in the town where she lived got wind of her nefarious sideline and set up a sting. They sent two young officers -- a male and a female -- posing as a couple, to get a private reading from "Marushka." She did the reading, they paid her -- and then they slapped the cuffs on her. She was charged under this 80-year old anti-fortunetelling law.

The case went to trial. The prosecution had both officers testify. They thought they had a slam dunk case. When the prosecution rested, the defense attorney didn't call any witnesses, he immediately moved to dismiss. Both the judge and the prosecutor looked at him in amazement. "On what grounds?"

So the defense attorney read them the law. The law said two things: (1) it was illegal to advertise to foretell the future. [The defendant didn't advertise.] (2) it was illegal to accept money for fraudulently foretelling the future. [The prosecution had entered no evidence or testimony alleging or suggesting fraud.]

That's all the law said. The judge thought about it for a minute, then dismissed the case. A few months later, the legislature quietly repealed the statute.

As we frequently mention when people have questions about carry laws or use of force laws, there is no substitute for reading and understanding the laws in effect in the particular state or jurisdiction. Words have meaning, and in laws those words are usually fairly specific and precise. (If they aren't, the law may be tossed out as "unconstitutionally vague.") So here's another example. Everyone jumped on that law without reading the fine print and concluded that the kid was breaking the law by having that rifle.

And then someone actually read the law ...
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old Today, 09:31 AM   #56
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,654
Quote:
I think the kid showed some poor judgement by being there to start with.
Did the minutemen show poor judgement by being on the Lexington Commons? If you continually give ground, the mob will run you out of the country.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05175 seconds with 9 queries