Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 07:39:18 PM
Under 18. Was he in compliance with 29.593 or not? Was he an accomplice to a crime or not? No he was not in compliance and yes he was an accomplice to a felony.
3c ARE FELONY EXCEPTIONS TO 2a THAT IS A MISDEMEANOR!
He was in possession of an illegal deadly weapon. The deadly weapon did not belong to him. It was acquired illegally.

He was in compliance with 29.593 because it didn't apply... he wasn't hunting... 

I disagree with your premise that if he were under 18 and active duty, he'd get a misdemeanor.

Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 07:52:30 PM


He was in compliance with 29.593 because it didn't apply... he wasn't hunting... 

I disagree with your premise that if he were under 18 and active duty, he'd get a misdemeanor.

If he was under 18 and active duty he would not get a misdemeanor if he was on duty. If he was not on duty 2a would apply.. Also since he wasn't hunting he wasn't in compliance with 29.593. He was also in possession of an illegally acquired firearm. I notice you don't want to address that issue either. When he BORROWED  the firearm he was an accomplice to a felony. The exceptions in 3a and 3b negate the misdemeanor. The exception in 3c makes the misdemeanor in 2a into a felony.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 08:17:38 PM
If he was under 18 and active duty he would not get a misdemeanor if he was on duty. If he was not on duty 2a would apply.. Also since he wasn't hunting he wasn't in compliance with 29.593. He was also in possession of an illegally acquired firearm. I notice you don't want to address that issue either. When he BORROWED  the firearm he was an accomplice to a felony. The exceptions in 3a and 3b negate the misdemeanor. The exception in 3c makes the misdemeanor in 2a into a felony.

Nope... you have to stick to your argument as to why 3(c) wouldn't apply. He's not hunting, hence 29.593 doesn't apply.  I'd love for you to explain why it does, however...

Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 08:23:03 PM


Nope... you have to stick to your argument as to why 3(c) wouldn't apply. He's not hunting, hence 29.593 doesn't apply.  I'd love for you to explain why it does, however...

Same for you and why 2a doesn't apply. And why don't you try to explain how he legally acquired the dangerous weapon he was illegally carrying? Because he wasn't hunting he had no reason to have the weapon to begin with. It really is a mute point because the weapon he had was illegal and his possession was illegal. He didn't own the weapon. 2a applies. When he is convicted he will never be able to own a firearm in the future.

c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is not in compliance with ss.29.593.
There does that clear it up? He was under 18 years of age and he is not in compliance with ss.29.593. It doesn't matter if he was hunting or not. If he was hunting and not in compliance it would be a felony.

Ok Solar prove me wrong.
  948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2) 

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

(3) 

(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.

Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17yo resident of Illinois. He borrowed a rifle and in the process of defending himself he killed 2 people and wounded 1 person.  Now explain to me how a minor can legally be in possession of a deadly weapon and legally carry that same weapon in public when the law clearly says he can't. He borrowed the deadly weapon which is an accomplice to a felony. He is a minor in possession of a deadly weapon which is a misdemeanor.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 25, 2020, 07:49:58 PM
Ok Solar prove me wrong.
  948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2) 

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

(3) 

(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.

Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17yo resident of Illinois. He borrowed a rifle and in the process of defending himself he killed 2 people and wounded 1 person.  Now explain to me how a minor can legally be in possession of a deadly weapon and legally carry that same weapon in public when the law clearly says he can't. He borrowed the deadly weapon which is an accomplice to a felony. He is a minor in possession of a deadly weapon which is a misdemeanor.

As stated above, it's a misdemeanor. The only person liable is the person that provided said weapon. Where does it say he can't carry a weapon?
Rittenhouse is clear because it was clearly an act of self defense.

The burden of proof is not in the courts favor.

(3) Burden of proof. When the existence of an affirmative defense under sub. (2) has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt under sub. (1).
History: 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: First-degree intentional homicide is analogous to the prior offense of first-degree murder. Sub. (2) formerly contained a narrower definition of "intent to kill" than the general definition of criminal intent. That narrower definition has been eliminated in the interest of uniformity. Section 939.23 now defines the intent referred to.
The affirmative defenses specified in sub. (2) were formerly treated in s. 940.05. This caused confusion because they seemed to be elements of manslaughter rather than defenses to first-degree murder. Sub. (2) specifies only those affirmative defenses which mitigate an intentional homicide from first to 2nd degree. Other affirmative defenses are a defense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide also, such as self-defense, i.e., when both beliefs specified in sub. (2) (b) are reasonable. Section 939.48.
The prosecution is required to prove only that the defendant's acts were a substantial factor in the victim's death; not the sole cause. State v. Block, 170 Wis. 2d 676, 489 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1992).
The trial court must apply an objective reasonable view of the evidence test to determine whether under sub. (3) a mitigating affirmative defense "has been placed in issue" before submitting the issue to the jury. In Interest of Shawn B. N. 173 Wis. 2d 343, 497 N.W.2d 141 (Ct. App. 1992).
Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
Sub. (1) (a) cannot be applied against a mother for actions taken against a fetus while pregnant as the applicable definition of human being under s. 939.22 (16) is limited to one who is born alive. Sub. (1) (b) does not apply because s. 939.75 (2) (b) excludes from its application actions by a pregnant woman. State v. Deborah J.Z. 228 Wis. 2d 468, 596 N.W.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1999), 96-2797.
Barring psychiatric or psychological opinion testimony on the defendant's capacity to form an intent to kill is constitutional. Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F. 2d 384 (1990) citing Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72, 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980).
A privilege for excusable homicide by accident or misfortune is incorporated in s. 939.45 (6). Accident is a defense that negatives intent. If a person kills another by accident, the killing could not have been intentional. Accident must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant raises it as a defense. When the state proves intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, it necessarily disproves accident. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
A defendant may demonstrate that he or she was acting lawfully, a necessary element of an accident defense, by showing that he or she was acting in lawful self-defense. Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/01

Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2020, 08:28:28 PM
As stated above, it's a misdemeanor. The only person liable is the person that provided said weapon. Where does it say he can't carry a weapon?
Rittenhouse is clear because it was clearly an act of self defense.

The burden of proof is not in the courts favor.

(3) Burden of proof. When the existence of an affirmative defense under sub. (2) has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt under sub. (1).
History: 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: First-degree intentional homicide is analogous to the prior offense of first-degree murder. Sub. (2) formerly contained a narrower definition of "intent to kill" than the general definition of criminal intent. That narrower definition has been eliminated in the interest of uniformity. Section 939.23 now defines the intent referred to.
The affirmative defenses specified in sub. (2) were formerly treated in s. 940.05. This caused confusion because they seemed to be elements of manslaughter rather than defenses to first-degree murder. Sub. (2) specifies only those affirmative defenses which mitigate an intentional homicide from first to 2nd degree. Other affirmative defenses are a defense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide also, such as self-defense, i.e., when both beliefs specified in sub. (2) (b) are reasonable. Section 939.48.
The prosecution is required to prove only that the defendant's acts were a substantial factor in the victim's death; not the sole cause. State v. Block, 170 Wis. 2d 676, 489 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1992).
The trial court must apply an objective reasonable view of the evidence test to determine whether under sub. (3) a mitigating affirmative defense "has been placed in issue" before submitting the issue to the jury. In Interest of Shawn B. N. 173 Wis. 2d 343, 497 N.W.2d 141 (Ct. App. 1992).
Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
Sub. (1) (a) cannot be applied against a mother for actions taken against a fetus while pregnant as the applicable definition of human being under s. 939.22 (16) is limited to one who is born alive. Sub. (1) (b) does not apply because s. 939.75 (2) (b) excludes from its application actions by a pregnant woman. State v. Deborah J.Z. 228 Wis. 2d 468, 596 N.W.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1999), 96-2797.
Barring psychiatric or psychological opinion testimony on the defendant's capacity to form an intent to kill is constitutional. Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F. 2d 384 (1990) citing Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72, 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980).
A privilege for excusable homicide by accident or misfortune is incorporated in s. 939.45 (6). Accident is a defense that negatives intent. If a person kills another by accident, the killing could not have been intentional. Accident must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant raises it as a defense. When the state proves intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, it necessarily disproves accident. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
A defendant may demonstrate that he or she was acting lawfully, a necessary element of an accident defense, by showing that he or she was acting in lawful self-defense. Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/01

2a says he can't carry a dangerous weapon. You can't legally carry something you can't legally possess.  I've never disagreed that it was self defense. He is guilty of a misdemeanor of the possession. They possibly can make the other charges stick because he shouldn't have been carrying the rifle in the first place. Rittenhouse is also an accomplice to a felony by willfully taking possession of the firearm. Rittenhouse broke the law and 2 people died and 1 person was injured because he broke the law. The person that gave him the firearm is guilty of multiple felonies. He shot 3 people with a rifle he illegally had possession of. Rittenhouse is a criminal and so is his friend that loaned him the rifle. Again I will say he made stupid and childish decisions that could have been avoided. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people for the rest of his life. He legally had no right to be in possession of a dangerous weapon. He legally had no right to be open carrying that same dangerous weapon. He will be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly manslaughter and possibly wreck less endangerment. Based on the provable facts he did not commit 1st degree murder.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 25, 2020, 09:09:55 PM
2a says he can't carry a dangerous weapon. You can't legally carry something you can't legally possess.  I've never disagreed that it was self defense. He is guilty of a misdemeanor of the possession. They possibly can make the other charges stick because he shouldn't have been carrying the rifle in the first place. Rittenhouse is also an accomplice to a felony by willfully taking possession of the firearm. Rittenhouse broke the law and 2 people died and 1 person was injured because he broke the law. The person that gave him the firearm is guilty of multiple felonies. He shot 3 people with a rifle he illegally had possession of. Rittenhouse is a criminal and so is his friend that loaned him the rifle. Again I will say he made stupid and childish decisions that could have been avoided. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people for the rest of his life. He legally had no right to be in possession of a dangerous weapon. He legally had no right to be open carrying that same dangerous weapon. He will be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly manslaughter and possibly wreck less endangerment. Based on the provable facts he did not commit 1st degree murder.

WRONG! Two people died because they tried to harm or kill Rittenhouse. Period.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 25, 2020, 09:09:55 PM
2a says he can't carry a dangerous weapon. You can't legally carry something you can't legally possess.  I've never disagreed that it was self defense. He is guilty of a misdemeanor of the possession. They possibly can make the other charges stick because he shouldn't have been carrying the rifle in the first place. Rittenhouse is also an accomplice to a felony by willfully taking possession of the firearm. Rittenhouse broke the law and 2 people died and 1 person was injured because he broke the law. The person that gave him the firearm is guilty of multiple felonies. He shot 3 people with a rifle he illegally had possession of. Rittenhouse is a criminal and so is his friend that loaned him the rifle. Again I will say he made stupid and childish decisions that could have been avoided. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people for the rest of his life. He legally had no right to be in possession of a dangerous weapon. He legally had no right to be open carrying that same dangerous weapon. He will be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly manslaughter and possibly wreck less endangerment. Based on the provable facts he did not commit 1st degree murder.

Nope. No court in the land will stretch a misdemeanor into a felony, and it's for this very reason we have a Second Amendment, so some politically motivated, overzealous court/DA doesn't abuse our Rights.

You can't legally tie charges on a minor that only apply to another party, that's simply illegal. No, the person that supplied him the weapon owns any charges stemming from their own actions.
The law is not always the remedy for all wrongs, especially unintentional ones consequences.
That's like me giving a child a pack of balloons, the kid shares them with friends, one slow learner in the group chokes to death on one, and you want to see me hang over a pack of balloons?

The Federal Govt doesn't have an issue with age, it is the state that assigned a clause to our Bill of Rights and a good attorney will expose this.

This is akin to playing ball in a park that doesn't allow sports during the week, makes sports off limits except on weekends, a misdemeanor and someone died when they were hit by a spectators beer bottle from the stands on Wednesday.

Point is, Wisconsin knew, and if you read through all their laws, they are huge on liberty and Freedom and never intended a misdemeanor to misconstrued and put someones life in jeopardy for a minor infraction for defending oneself.

You are looking at all of this through the eyes of vengeful leftists. Stop it, look at it through the eyes of our Founders idea of justice, and think, how would they have approached this matter......Self Defense...

Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 06:08:19 AM
Nope. No court in the land will stretch a misdemeanor into a felony, and it's for this very reason we have a Second Amendment, so some politically motivated, overzealous court/DA doesn't abuse our Rights.

You can't legally tie charges on a minor that only apply to another party, that's simply illegal. No, the person that supplied him the weapon owns any charges stemming from their own actions.
The law is not always the remedy for all wrongs, especially unintentional ones consequences.
That's like me giving a child a pack of balloons, the kid shares them with friends, one slow learner in the group chokes to death on one, and you want to see me hang over a pack of balloons?

The Federal Govt doesn't have an issue with age, it is the state that assigned a clause to our Bill of Rights and a good attorney will expose this.

This is akin to playing ball in a park that doesn't allow sports during the week, makes sports off limits except on weekends, a misdemeanor and someone died when they were hit by a spectators beer bottle from the stands on Wednesday.

Point is, Wisconsin knew, and if you read through all their laws, they are huge on liberty and Freedom and never intended a misdemeanor to misconstrued and put someones life in jeopardy for a minor infraction for defending oneself.

You are looking at all of this through the eyes of vengeful leftists. Stop it, look at it through the eyes of our Founders idea of justice, and think, how would they have approached this matter......Self Defense...

Bulletin. The law is clear. The misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon will stick. Just because he is a minor doesn't absolve him of other crimes. He broke the law c and the 2nd amendment isn't going to save him on this one.
I notice you won't answer the question I posed to you earlier.  What do you know would happen to you if you walked down the street open carrying an unloaded gun? You would be arrested and charged.  The state you live in the 2nd amendment doesn't mean shit. The bottom line is Rittenhouse broke the law. He is a criminal.  All you  and Taxed have proven is just that. Again we'll have to wait and see.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 07:25:24 AM
Bulletin. The law is clear. The misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon will stick. Just because he is a minor doesn't absolve him of other crimes. He broke the law c and the 2nd amendment isn't going to save him on this one.

Get it through your head, a misdemeanor offense is not a felony, no matter how you want to twist the law to fit your scenario.

QuoteI notice you won't answer the question I posed to you earlier.  What do you know would happen to you if you walked down the street open carrying an unloaded gun? You would be arrested and charged.  The state you live in the 2nd amendment doesn't mean shit. The bottom line is Rittenhouse broke the law. He is a criminal.  All you  and Taxed have proven is just that. Again we'll have to wait and see.

Because it was a stupid question!
Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights.

Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 08:40:33 AM
Get it through your head, a misdemeanor offense is not a felony, no matter how you want to twist the law to fit your scenario.
Because it was a stupid question!
Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights.

I know a misdemeanor is not a crime. I have never said it was. A misdemeanor is still a crime. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor and is a crime. Get it through your head Rittenhouse is a criminal. He was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon. He committed a crime and because he did it caused bodily damage or death to 3 other people. It still doesn't change the fact that he is an accomplice to a class H felony.
You won't answer the question, not because it's stupid but because you know I'm right.
Rittenhouse is just as much of a criminal as the rioters. He is charged and he will be convicted of something. He and his parents will definitely be sued. The person that gave him the rifle will be charged, convicted and sued. Are you denying any responsibility for the guy that gave him the rifle?He was wrong. He is stupid and he is immature and childish. He fucked up BAD.
You still won't answer my question. What happens to you if you get caught with an unmodified AR15 in your state? Where is the 2nd amendment then?

The man is a hero! What does the city expect when there is a state of utter lawlessness? Yes he shouldnt have been illegally carrying a firearm, but there shouldnt have been a state of rioting and anarchy in the city either. And either way IT was self defense and not murder.

Also, funny how all these antifa thugs want to act all tough  but got totally owned by a 17 year old with a gun 😅 they act like they want civil war, but cant even handle one 17 year old. Good luck with that..

Quote from: American Loving Norwegian on September 26, 2020, 11:16:14 AM
The man is a hero! What does the city expect when there is a state of urter lawlessness? Yes he shouldnt have been illegally carrying a firearm, but there shouldnt have been a state of rioting and anarchy in the city either. And either way IT was self defense and not murder.

Also, funny how all these antifa thugs want to act all tough  but got totally owned by a 17 year old with a gun 😅 they act like they want civil war, but cant even handle one 17 year old. Good luck with that..

He isn't a hero. He is a criminal just like the rioters. He did nothing heroic. He is a stupid kid that made stupid decisions that will affect the rest of his life. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people. Just because it was in self defense doesn't change the fact. I'm not saying he was wrong to defend himself. What I'm saying is he never should have been in the situation to begin with. Killing someone in real life is not the same as killing someone in a video game. There is no reset button. Why do you or anyone else say he's a hero? What did he do that was heroic? NOTHING! He's a criminal.