From what this view it looks clearly looks like self-defense but the statutes regarding age limits of possessing such a weapon could cause problems and they ignore the value of life since Rittenhouse WAS A LOCAL, and came from across state lines, and was in violation of curfew. But, to me, I don't see how the minor violations which are probably misdemeanors that would result in community service or detention, and since the penalty is not death, yet 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 illegal rifle for your age, do you have no right to defend your life when you did not instigate the immediate threat against it?
From what this view it looks clearly looks like self-defense but the statutes regarding age limits of possessing such a weapon could cause problems and they ignore the value of life since Rittenhouse WAS A LOCAL, and came from across state lines, and was in violation of curfew. But, to me, I don't see how the minor violations which are probably misdemeanors that would result in community service or detention, and since the penalty is not death, yet 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 illegal rifle for your age, do you have no right to defend your life when you did not instigate the immediate threat against it?
Comments
Post a Comment