The best logical take on the fact of the Kyle Rittenhouse Wisconsin shooting. ESSENTIAL said, "Justified".
He does share my opinion of being underages and carrying a regulated weapon does not override your right to defend your life from lethal insults against it.
From this view, in the link below, it looks clearly looks like self-defense as well, but the statutes regarding age limits of possessing such a weapon could cause problems, but those problems are not specified, and this speaker seems to ignore directly mentioning the value of life and is probably not aware of the other available information regarding the fact he was supervised by adults during this incident, and though Rittenhouse WAS not A LOCAL, he considered himself to be from the areas, though he reportedly came from across state lines, yet he was there on a job, working as an armed medic, and was technically, as far as my opinion, not in violation of curfew, since on a job site with his parents' permission and under the supervision of other adults.
But, to me, I don't see how the minor violations which are confirmed to be misdemeanors which would potentially result in community service or detention, not a death sentence, while prosecution for those reasons would negate the value of life, and would send the message this question should be asked, "If you are out past curfew holding an age-restricted rifle for your age, do you have no right to defend your life when you did not instigate the immediate threat against it?
https://blawz.blogspot.com/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-new-videos.html
https://youtu.be/NSU9ZvnudFE
Comments
Post a Comment